The closure of the Navotas Sanitary Landfill (NSLF) unfolded over more than two years, marked by regulatory filings, franchise battles, and court-mandated expropriation. Closure planning began on 20 December 2023 when PhilEco submitted its initial plan.

That effort was paused while the facility’s Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) was amended to expand daily capacity from 3,000 to 10,000 tons.

The fire that erupted on 10 April brought the conflict between PhilEco and San Miguel Aerocity Inc., which expropriated the property, into the open.

It triggered a prolonged and widespread deterioration in air quality across Metro Manila and neighboring provinces, with the effects persisting for more than two weeks.

Smoke and haze from the blaze, initially declared as “under control” on 12 April, were marked by ongoing smoldering and continued to result in high levels of pollutants.

The ECC amendment was approved on 30 October 2024, allowing the formal resumption of closure work. The Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP) and Abandonment Plan were resubmitted on 10 October 2025.

Despite these preparations, PhilEco’s 19-year franchise ended on 26 August 2025 after the Sangguniang Bayan of Navotas rejected its renewal appeals.

The company had warned that non-renewal would disrupt waste services for seven Metro Manila local government units (LGUs) and leave the landfill, then only partially filled with an estimated five years’ remaining capacity, underutilized.

A day later, on 27 August 2025, a multi-agency meeting involving DENR-Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) National Capital Region, SMAI, Navotas City’s City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) and PhilEco agreed to limited operations.

These were limited solely to municipal solid waste generated within Navotas City to avoid immediate service disruptions during the transition. An Interim Plan for Closure was submitted the next day and accepted by EMB on 29 August 2025.

No waste from other LGUs was accepted. All waste acceptance finally ceased on 30 December 2025. Six weeks later, on 6 February 2026, PhilEco received a Notice to Vacate under the Regional Trial Court of Navotas City’s Writ of Possession in Civil Case N23-SCA-01.

Possession and control of the entire site were formally transferred to SMAI on 13 February 2026, documented by the sheriff’s Certificate of Delivery. That handover marked the moment PhilEco lost all access, authority, and operational sequencing needed to execute the approved SCRP and Abandonment Plan.

In letters to the DENR, PhilEco has now formally withdrawn its previously submitted Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan.

The company stressed that it did not voluntarily abandon the facility or cease operations because of any environmental or regulatory violation.

“PhilEco did not voluntarily abandon the NSLF Project, nor did it cease operations by choice,” the letters stated. Instead, closure and the eventual loss of possession were the unavoidable legal consequences of the court-ordered expropriation.

The Abandonment Plan itself had anticipated this transition and identified SMAI as the entity that would assume responsibility once possession changed hands.

Site access a logical need

PhilEco emphasized that safe closure and post-closure measures — leachate management, gas venting system maintenance, slope stabilization, environmental monitoring, and compliance reporting — require actual physical control and unrestricted site access.

“With the ownership lawfully transferred to SMAI, PhilEco is placed in a position of legal and factual impossibility to undertake engineering works on a property it no longer controls,” the correspondence explained.

Environmental accountability, the company argued, must now rest with the party that aggressively sought and obtained possession.

During the expropriation proceedings, PhilEco had repeatedly warned the court of the environmental risks inherent in disturbing or building over a sanitary landfill.

Puncturing the multi-layer liner system could trigger leachate percolation into groundwater, while methane gas migration posed explosion hazards.

Landfills continue to generate gases and undergo settlement for decades after closure, rendering immediate redevelopment potentially hazardous without sustained engineering controls.

SMAI, however, assured the court it would engage qualified experts and deploy available technologies to mitigate those risks. Its own expert witness confirmed that mitigation measures were feasible.

The court accepted those representations, ruled the concerns manageable, and ordered the transfer of possession. PhilEco told DENR it would be “fundamentally inconsistent” to require the former operator to implement closure activities on land judicially awarded to another party on the explicit premise that SMAI could address the same risks.

“Having secured possession on that premise, SMAI must now undertake the corresponding obligations and implement the safeguards and mitigation measures it represented before the court,” the letters asserted.

The company also noted that DENR’s technical comments on the Abandonment Plan focused on refinements rather than challenging the core premise that responsibility had shifted with possession.

Despite losing control, PhilEco has remained engaged. It participated in a DENR-led technical conference on 16 March 2026 with SMAI and Navotas City officials to discuss ongoing closure requirements and offered to share historical operational data for an orderly handover.

The company also addressed the fire that broke out at the site after the transfer — the first such incident in its 19-year record — and reiterated that any delays in closure work after 13 February 2026 stemmed directly from the loss of possession, not from neglect or non-compliance.

PhilEco’s position underscores a straightforward regulatory reality: operational responsibility follows possession and control.

As Metro Manila continues to wrestle with solid-waste capacity challenges, attention now shifts to how SMAI, as the new lawful possessor, will fulfill the environmental safeguards it assured the court it could deliver.