Boracay is a prime tourist destination which caters to both local and foreign tourists. Any issue thereat has corresponding effects, direct or otherwise, at a national level. This, for one, reasonably takes the issues therein from a level that concerns only the local officials. At any rate, notice must be taken of the fact that even if the concerned LGUs have long been fully aware of the problems afflicting Boracay, they failed to effectively remedy it.
Yet still, in recognition of their mandated roles and involvement in the rehabilitation of Boracay, Proclamation No. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay , [66] called out the concerned government agencies for their cavalier attitude towards solving environmental destruction despite hard evidence and clear signs of climate crisis. It equated the failure to put environmental protection on a plane of high national priority to the then lacking level of bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.
In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility.
This means that the State, through [the concerned department-agencies], has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.
The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Thus, we must reiterate that different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.
There is an obvious similarity in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority and in the present case in that both involve the restoration of key areas in the country which were once glowing with radiance and vitality but are now in shambles due to abuses and exploitation. What sets these two cases apart is that in the former, those mandated to act still needed to be enjoined in order to act.
In this case, the bold and urgent action demanded by the Court in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority is now in the roll out. Still, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators heard during times of inaction can still be heard during this time of full action — demonstrating a classic case of "damn if you do, damn if you don't".
Thus, in order for the now staunch commitment to save the environment not to fade, it behooves upon the courts to be extra cautious in invalidating government measures meant towards addressing environmental degradation. Absent any clear showing of constitutional infirmity, arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion, these measures must be upheld and even lauded and promoted.
After all, not much time is left for us to remedy the present environmental situation. To borrow from Oposa , unless the State undertakes its solemn obligation to preserve the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and advance the health of the people, "the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.
Bersamin C. Reyes, Jr. Carpio and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ. Leonen, J. See separate opinion. Jardeleza, J. Caguioa, J. See dissenting opinion. Please take notice that on February 12, a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on February 22, at p. Lee , Phil. Anti-Terrorism Council , Phil. Acting Secretary Agra , Phil. Executive Secretary Ermita , Phil.
Chairman Villar , Phil. Drilon , Phil. Heusdens , Phil. Ericta , Phil. Drilon , supra note 37 at Court of Appeals , Phil.
Department of Social Welfare and Development , Phil. This case involves the constitutionality of Proclamation No. To pave the way for the rehabilitation of Boracay Island and prevent further degradation of its rich ecosystem, the proclamation ordered the temporary closure of the island as a tourist destination for six months [5] during which period the government would undertake massive road, drainage, and sewerage construction, as well as require all establishments to comply with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Code on Sanitation of the Philippines, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of , and other relevant laws.
However, local residents of Boracay Island were not prohibited from entering or leaving the island during the rehabilitation period as the prohibition applied only to travelers and tourists. Swimming in the waters of Boracay Island was generally not allowed during the six-month rehabilitation period. Many roads were closed for rehabilitation, widening, and construction, including the main road network which is the primary access to many establishments in the island.
Under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. The rehabilitation of Boracay Island as a consequence of Proclamation No. Given such a situation in Boracay Island, the invocation on behalf of non-residents of Boracay Island of the right to travel, which includes the right to move freely within the country, [18] is misplaced. First, the valid closure of roads severely restricted movement around the island.
Second, the closure of hotels and establishments pending investigation and accreditation left tourists and non-locals with no accommodations. Third, the valid ban on swimming in Boracay beaches for sanitary and health considerations made unavailable the main tourist attraction of Boracay Island.
Clearly, the condition of Boracay Island during the six-month rehabilitation period justified the prohibition on travelers and tourists from entering Boracay Island because of the physical impediment to traveling around the island resulting from the massive road, sewerage and drainage construction, the lack of accommodations, and the ban on swimming and other water recreational activities.
Thus, Proclamation No. These are laws pursuant to the police power of the state. There is no claim that these laws are unconstitutional. The President, in the exercise of his control over the Executive branch of government, [19] can directly exercise the functions of subordinate officials tasked to implement these laws. No person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized representative.
For the proper management of said critical project or area, the President may by his proclamation reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or instrumentalities including the re-alignment of government personnel, and their specific functions and responsibilities.
For the same purpose as above, the Ministry of Human Settlements shall: a prepare the proper land or water use pattern for said critical project s or area s ; b establish ambient environmental quality standards; c develop a program of environmental enhancement or protective measures against calamitous factors such as earthquake, floods, water erosion and others, and d perform such other functions as may be directed by the President from time to time.
Inland Waters. Marine and Estuarine Waters. Quezon City , G. Manglapus , Phil. Among other points, I agree with the ponencia that "this case does not actually involve the right to travel in its essential sense contrary to what petitioners want to portray. To expound, the right to travel has been regarded as integral to personal liberty, [3] which Blackstone defines as "freedom from restraint of the person. It likewise assured merchants , that they may enter, leave, stay, and move about England "unharmed and without fear.
An examination of local cases wherein the right to travel was involved will support the premise that the right to travel — if one were to understand the same in its proper sense — ought to pertain to government regulations that directly affect the individual's freedom of locomotion or movement. For instance, in Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City , [12] the minors' exercise of travel rights was restricted by the curfew ordinances. In several cases, [13] the accused in a criminal case, especially those released on bail, were held to be validly prevented from departing from the Philippines.
Drilon , [14] the deployment ban was imposed on female domestic overseas workers. Further, during medical emergencies, a person may be isolated or quarantined to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Even the statutes recognized as validly impairing the right to travel have, for its proper object, a palpably direct restraint on a person's freedom of movement, viz.
In all these instances, the restrictions on the right to travel were imposed on a person or group of persons , [22] seemingly attaching unto them some form of "ball and chain" to limit their movement. Clearly, this is not the situation presented in this case. While the closure of Boracay pursuant to Proclamation No. Thus, whatever effect such regulation may have on a person's ability to travel to such a specific place is merely incidental in nature and accordingly, is conceptually remote from the right's proper sense.
To my mind, Proclamation No. Thus, as the right to travel is not the correct vantage point to resolve this case, there is no need to determine whether or not an explicit statutory enactment exists to justify the impairment of said right as required under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution.
Lest it be misunderstood, the extrication of this case from a "right to travel analysis" does not necessarily mean that the President is, by his sole accord, both authorized and justified in issuing Proclamation No. Fundamentally speaking, the President is the Chief of the Executive Department whose main task is to faithfully execute the laws. In its simple sense, his duty is not to make law, but rather, implement the law.
As its titular heading denotes, Proclamation No. In order to address the situation declared thereunder, it was necessary for the Executive to effect "expeditious rehabilitation," and to implement this objective, the President had to direct the area's temporary closure.
To be sure, insofar as this case is concerned, the power of the President to declare a state of calamity over a particular locality may be sourced from the Administrative Code of [24] in relation to the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of What comes to mind is the doctrine of necessary implication which evokes that "[e]very statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.
Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. By and large, I find it unreasonable that a President who declares a state of calamity, and who has been further prompted by a specialized government agency created for disaster operations pursuant to existing laws to effect a viable plan of action is nonetheless impotent to pursue the necessary steps to effect a viable plan of action.
Surely, the President must be given reasonable leeway to address calamitous situations, else he be reduced to a mere mouthpiece of doom. At this juncture, it is apt to state that Proclamation No. As earlier mentioned, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of empowers the NDRRMC to recommend the declaration of a state of calamity in areas extensively damaged by either natural or human-induced hazards such as environment degradation, as well as proposals to restore normalcy in the affected areas, such as through rehabilitation [33] or the rebuilding of damaged infrastructures.
Further, the Administrative Code of grants the DENR the power to "exercise supervision and control over [alienable public lands]," [34] such as Boracay, and the Department of Interior and Local Government the authority to implement programs "to meet national or local emergencies arising from natural or man-made disasters," [35] such as environmental destruction. Ultimately, the agglomeration of the above-stated laws reveals that the Executive Department has sufficient statutory authority to clean up the Island.
Since the Constitution vests all executive power in the President, and on this score, grants him the power of control over all executive departments, he can, within the bounds of law, integrate and take on the above-stated functions, and in the exercise of which, issue a directive to implement an environmental rehabilitation program as recommended by the relevant state agency.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, the temporary closure of the Island to tourists was necessary to effectively execute Boracay's rehabilitation program pursuant to a declaration of a state of calamity. Therefore, the President had sufficient authority from both the Constitution and statutes to issue Proclamation No.
That being said, and as a point of clarification, I find it unnecessary to situate such authority in his unstated residual powers. Having discussed the President's authority, the final question to be traversed is whether or not there was ample justification for the issuance of Proclamation No. As previously mentioned, this case should not be assessed against the parameters of the right to travel. As Proclamation No.
After all, this approach specifically corresponds to petitioners' line of argumentation. In particular, as found in the petition, petitioners Mark Anthony V. As alleged, Zabal earns a living by making sandcastles while Jacosalem works as a driver for tourists. Under the auspices of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, protected property includes the right to work and the right to earn a living.
In this case, although the exclusion of tourists from the Island drastically affected the trade or livelihood of those reliant on them, including petitioners, I submit that the government had a legitimate State interest in rehabilitating the affected localities of Boracay given the Island's current critical state.
Findings of various government agencies in the Island reveal its precarious environmental condition, to wit: a high concentration of fecal coliform due to improper sewage infrastructure and sewer waste management system; b dirty water resulting in the degradation of coral reefs and coral cover; c improper solid waste management; d destruction of natural habitats in the island; e beach erosion caused by illegal extraction of sand along the beach; f illegal structures along the foreshore; and g unauthorized discharge of untreated waste water near the shore.
To effectively remedy the Island's environmental woes, "expeditious rehabilitation" thereof became crucial, and in line therewith, the entry of tourists became necessary to suspend. As aptly rationalized in the ponencia :. The rehabilitation works in the first place were not simple, superficial or mere cosmetic but rather quite complicated, major, and permanent in character as they were intended to serve as long term solutions to the problem.
Moreover, the limited six 6 -month period shows that the closure was not unduly oppressive upon individuals, and was put in place only to implement the desired State objective. Therefore, all things considered, Proclamation No. Article 13 of the UDHR provides:. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order ordre public , public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Section 5. The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.
In Marcos v. Sandiganbayan Phil. The State S. Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances. De Lima G. Section 4. Underscoring supplied. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. Section Clean-Up Operations. That in the event emergency clean-up operations are necessary x x x the Department , in coordination with other government agencies concerned, shall conduct containment, removal and clean-up operations.
Emphasis supplied. Caguioa's Dissenting Opinion, pp. Carpio's Separate Concurring Opinion in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. City of Manila , Phil. Atienza, Jr. In short, there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. It violates the right to life and liberty properly invoked by petitioners without due process of law.
The Proclamation imposes a closure and a deprivation of the livelihood of those who have not been shown to have caused the high levels of fecal coliform and other human made incursions into Boracay's ecology which invited President Rodrigo Duterte's drastic actions. The specific actions and programs to be undertaken during the closure of the entire island, so as to properly advise the residents, workers, and others interested, are not clearly stated.
The six 6 -month duration of the closure is arbitrary. The state of calamity will persist even after the closure expires. The lifting of the declaration of the state of calamity is not preceded by any discernible standard. It is inconsistent with the latter, containing provisions with serious constitutional implications.
By exercising control rather than merely supervision, the Presidential exercise violates the constitutionally protected principle of local autonomy. Contrary to the Majority's view, such infringement is neither incidental nor marginal. Assuming that a state of calamity was properly declared, the Proclamation upends the framework of locally-led remediation and rehabilitation efforts mandated by the statutes.
By declaring that only the President can lift the declaration, the Proclamation violates Republic Act No. Human induced ecological disasters need to be addressed deliberately, systematically, structurally and with all institutions of government actively engaging public participation. There are laws already in place that could have been properly enforced. The right intentions however must always be accompanied by the right and legal means. The Majority's tolerance for the dramatic and drastic actions of the Chief Executive violates the rule of law and undermines constitutional democracy.
Considering the many calamities our society has to face, upholding the framework contained in Proclamation No. The Petition raises questions relating to petitioners' right to travel and right to due process. I join Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa's view that the right to travel has been violated especially in light of the most recent unanimous decision of this Court in Genuino v De Lima. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law[.
The due process clause is written as a proscription. As early as , in the seminal work of Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel Warren, this sphere was referred to as the "right to be left alone" from interference by the State.
Reviewing its evolution in common law:. That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society.
Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect.
Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life,—the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession—intangible, as well as tangible. Thus, with the recognition of the legal value of sensations, the protection against actual bodily injury was extended to prohibit mere attempts to do such injury; that is, the putting another in fear of such injury.
From the action of battery grew that of assault. Much later there came a qualified protection of the individual against offensive noises and odors, against dust and smoke and excessive vibration.
The law of nuisance was developed. So regard for human emotions soon extended the scope of personal immunity beyond the body of the individual. His reputation, the standing among his fellow-men, was considered, and the law of slander and libel arose. Man's family relations became a part of the legal conception of his life, and the alienation of a wife's affections was held remediable.
Occasionally the law halted,—as in its refusal to recognize the intrusion by seduction upon the honor of the family. But even here the demands of society were met. A mean fiction, the action per quod servitium amisit , was resorted to, and by allowing damages for injury to the parents' feelings, an adequate remedy was oridinarily afforded. Similar to the expansion of the right to life was the growth of the legal conception of property. From corporeal property arose the incorporeal rights issuing out of it; and then there opened the wide realm of intangible property, in the products and processes of the mind, as works of literature and art, goodwill, trade secrets, and trademarks.
This development of the law was inevitable. The structure of the due process clause and the primordial value it conceals do not limit protection of life only to one's corporeal existence. Even property can be incorporeal. In Secretary of National Defense et al. Manalo et al. While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive—upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned—the right to security of person is a guarantee of the secure quality of this life, viz.
Rather, it is a life lived with the assurance that the government he established and consented to, will protect the security of his person and property. The ideal of security in life and property. It touches every aspect of man's existence. It includes the right to exist, and the enjoyment of life while existing, and it is invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those things which are necessary to the enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament and lawful desires of the individual.
City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator , subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare.
The rights to life and liberty are inextricably woven. Life is nothing without liberties. Without a full life, the fullest of liberties protected by our constitutional order will not happen. Again, in City of Manila :. While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty.
In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed. These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood where they formed under compulsion of the State. Speaking of life and its protection does not merely entail ensuring biological subsistence. It is not just a proscription against killing. Likewise, speaking of liberty and its protection does not merely involve a lack of physical restraint. The objects of the constitutional protection of due process are better understood dynamically and from a frame of consummate human dignity.
They are likewise better understood integrally, operating in a synergistic frame that serves to secure a person's integrity. Securing them denotes pursuing and obtaining them, as much as it denotes preserving them. The formulation is, thus, an aspirational declaration, not merely operating on factual givens but enabling the pursuit of ideals.
This is not an inventively novel understanding but one that has been at the bedrock of our social and political conceptions. As Justice George Malcolm, speaking for this Court in , articulated:. Civil liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others.
The right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare.
As enunciated in a long array of authorities including epoch-making decisions of the United States Supreme Court, liberty includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any avocation, and for that purpose, to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion.
The chief elements of the guaranty are the right to contract, the right to choose one's employment, the right to labor, and the right of locomotion. It is in this sense that the constitutional listing of the objects of due process protection admits amorphous bounds. The constitutional protection of life and liberty encompasses a penumbra of cognate rights that is not fixed but evolves — expanding liberty — alongside the contemporaneous reality in which the Constitution operates.
People v. Hernandez illustrated how the right to liberty is multi-faceted and is not limited to its initial formulation in the due process clause:. Petitioners assert that due process covers the right to livelihood, to work and earn a living. The first two 2 are informal workers who have no economic resources other than their ability to provide their services.
The last petitioner is a citizen claiming his right, as a Filipino, to enjoy the natural beauty of his country—his right to travel.
The majority unfortunately canisters this right as falling under the right to property. The argument is that since petitioners have no vested rights on their sources of income, they are not entitled to due process. Even if tourists were still allowed in the island, they earn nothing if no one avails of their services.
Thus, since petitioners' earnings are contingent and merely inchoate, the right to property does not yet exist. The right invoked is not merely the right to property. The right to livelihood falls within the spectrum of the almost inviolable right to life and liberty. The ability to answer a calling, evolve, and create a better version of oneself, in the process of serving others, is a quintessential part of one's life.
The right to life is not a mere corporeal existence, but includes one's choice of occupation. This is as important as to those who belong to the informal sector. It is an aspect of social justice that their right to be able to earn a livelihood should be protected by our Constitution. In the hierarchy of rights, the right to life and the right to liberty sit higher than the right to property.
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. We recognize the primacy of human rights over property rights because these rights are "delicate and vulnerable[. They "need breathing space to survive"; thus, government regulation is allowable only with "narrow specificity. In contrast, property rights may be readily qualified as evidenced by the many rules and laws that have been enacted on property ownership and possession.
The use of property bears as social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.
City of Manila , [18] this Court already emphasized that if the liberty involved were "freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is wider.
Amari Coral Beach reopened on 1 July, , after a major refurbishment, restyling of all rooms, a new-look lobby, a redesigned La Gritta Italian Restaurant, two swimming pools and the Sivara Spa.
The boutique Burasari Patong www. Under-construction lifestyle resort Burasari Jungceylon was far enough inland to escape flooding and sister Rena Udomkunnatum is pressing ahead with that development. With its breezy location on a hillside, the stylish Thai-villa Baan Yin Dee www. According to Club Andaman 's manager Adison Sitthiwong, "Cottages are going to be completely refurblished.
Only 38 cottages Andaman Cottages out of 52 will be in operation. The remaining 14 will be demolished and upgraded. Club Andaman cottages reopened for booking in February. Patong is being cleaned up fast. While the beachfront road - where most of the damage occurred - is quiet, inner streets are abustle with restaurants, shops, bars, and even that unfailing barometer of health, pirate DVD stalls, back in action. The popular beach road seafood restaurant Savoey has reopened and, up the hill, Baan Rim Pa is is in fine health.
Farther south, however, Montri's Kitchen is closed. Sheraton is functioning normally with pool and beach areas open. The Thai beachside restaurant is being rebuilt. Allamanda Laguna Phuket beach is also not affected.
By the first week of January , the entire Laguna Phuket area, including the beach, was functioning normally. There was no visible sand erosion along the shoreline and guests were enjoying the sun and astonishingly clear waters.
In a sure sign that commerce is alive and kicking, the seaside shacks selling gewgaws and T-shirts are back, tacky but triumphant. The Dusit Laguna Resort phuket. The Dusit Ballroom has reopened while the two restaurants have been entirely rebuilt and remodelled. Laguna Phuket has set up a tsunami relief fund. Details and donations at www. The Chedi Phuket which received a fair bit of international publicity with a sequence of photographs showing a wall of water overwhelming the beach restaurant, was fully operational when I visited in the first week of January The beach itself, as in so many other areas, is in pristine shape and shows no evidence of the brief surge.
Chedi guests were evacuated from the beach in time as were guests at the Amanpuri www. Access roads are open, the resort is fully functional and none of the Aman Cruises vessels were damaged. Amanpuri is fully functional and the beach area shows no signs of damage. An alert young Aman employee spotted the tide receeding dramatically and called the cruise director who immediately sounded the alarm, evacuating guests from the beach and calling incredulous resorts farther up the coast to warn them of impending danger.
Kamala Beach has been hard hit and the shattered Kamala Beach Resort is mute testament to the power of the water. The resort's marine frontage was hard hit. It expects to resume operation sometime in August, Beach activity is returning, albeit slowly. The hillside Kamala Beach Estate is fine. According to general manager Philippe Seigle, "The third wave came almost right up to the elevated lobby". The swimming pools and recreational areas suffered damage as did the restaurants and public areas on the ground floor.
Inland and south coast resorts like Mangosteen , Cape Panwa www. The Hilton was sheltered by the high embankment and raised road along much of Karon and adjoining beaches. Here flood waters failed to penetrate most resort areas. Marina Phuket Resort www. Similarly unaffected are the chic new Twin Palms www.
Twinpalms has reopened its Beach Club on Surin Beach which escaped damage and is now apparently certified as a "no-casualty" beach. The Evason Phuket Resort www. Tropical Garden Resort and Serene Resort in Kata were not affected by the tsunami as the properties stand on higher ground. They report all restaurants and rooms are on line with electricity, water, and full service. Nearby, the Boathouse is closed for repair.
Also unaffected is the tucked-away Andaman White Beach Resort which had a miraculous escape. It is unscathed save for a damaged beach bar.
According to general manager Luciano Lazzarin, "The wave changed direction at the last minute and approached us from the northwest reaching to the lip of the pool and lapping the underside of some beach front cottages. The spread-out Trisara Resort Phuket suffered minor damage to the pool but the clean-up is complete and no villas - all perched on higher ground - were affected.
The pool, restaurant, bar and kitchen were all running normally when this correspondent visited first week of January In a separate development, unconnected to the tsunami, the new Crowne Plaza Karon Beach is open for business.
Phuket airport has been running normally for several months and, with some pick-up in business, international flights are coming back. Royal Thai Airforce help centre [] , Phuket call centre [] , Ranong call centre [] Useful Sites : The Phuket Gazette has posted a message board for those looking for missing persons at www.
A similar set-up is at www. A very useful and comprehensive list of resorts in operation and out of commission in Phuket can be found at Phuket. Com while missing persons can be traced at www. The resort island of Phi Phi popularised in the movie The Beach is hard hit. The tourist areas on Phi Phi Don, the larger island, have been reduced to rubble. Volunteers continue to search for survivors and help clean up. All beachfront properties suffered extensive damage and most were simply swept away as the tsunami roared through the narrow, picturesque white-sand saddle separating two low hills.
Inspections of outlying coral are underway to assess undersea damage. The hotel is fully operational and is continuing to welcome guests. It did not affect us as we were on the sheltered east side of Phi Phi Don. As the surge progressed southwards, it left swathes of lower Krabi and Trang unscathed. Tel: [] or hotel phulaybeach. The Royal Lanta Resort is running despite minor disruptions and damage to the pool while the Twin Bay Resort is closed till late Krabi Airport is running normally.
Tubkaak is unaffected. Rayavadee www. According to the group's Paul van Frank, "Rayavadee suffered no loss of life and only minor damage to the property The Racha www. Damage was most severe at the emerging rustic resort area of Khao Lak a one-hour 70km drive north of Phuket Airport. As far as the eye could see the coast had been flattened with resorts smashed and debris flung everywhere.
Thai Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya lost her son Khun Poom Jensen here, and a coast guard ship, patrolling offshore for the royal family's protection, was flung hundreds of metres inland. At Khao Lak the tsunami's destruction has been complete and unequivocal. Most resorts, including Anantara Khao Lak www.
La Flora is busy rebuilding and hopes to reopen shortly. Khao Lak Resort and Khao Lak Seaview suffered damage to lower floors while, miraculously, the Khaolak Merlin Resort tel: [] , khaolakmerlin merlinphuket. The Merlin, or at least a large portion of it, remains operational. According to a hotel spokesperson, "Khaolak Merlin Resort is currently 70 percent operational.
As many as rooms along with two pools, the coffee shop, the health spa, the fitness centre, the lobby lounge, the ballroom and seminar room were NOT damaged.
All pumping systems, pure water supply and electricity systems are operational. The new rooms feature inch plasma flat-screen televisions. The resort offers Wireless Broadband access and a spa.
This property suffered perhaps the most extensive losses in the area. Accor, the French hotel management group that runs Sofitel responded speedily with call centres in Paris tel: [] , , and Bangkok tel: [] Accor is assisting guests with "psychological and material aid, as well as helping with repatriation.
The charming room boutique property The Sarojin , Khao Lak, has been renovated and reconstructed entirely and is also open for business. Tourism Malaysia says things are rapidly getting back to normal. Much of peninsular Malaysia was shielded from larger Indian Ocean waves by the island of Sumatra. Quoting an old Japanese proverb Usec. Tsunami waves generated by earthquakes from other countries may affect the country as well. Solidum advocates the conduct of community-level awareness about earthquakes and tsunamis focused on natural signs of an approaching local tsunami, warning, and evacuation procedure.
For information about the event, please contact:. Download PDF article here.
0コメント