ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS

 ADVOCATING FOR PERMANENT BURIAL RIGHTS 

It seems that very few people paid attention to the issue of temporary burial rights in the Philippines—until the case of Barangka, Marikina exploded in the media. Like many others, I had assumed that burial rights in cemeteries were permanent, meaning that once you were laid to rest, you would stay there forever. 

But the Marikina case shocked us into realizing the truth: in public cemeteries, the use of burial lots is often subject to municipal ordinances. In other words, they are “for rent.” And if the “rental” is not renewed, the remains of the dead can be removed— “evicted,” to use a harsh but accurate word. 

I cannot help but feel sad whenever I think about this. The rich can “rest in peace” forever in their mausoleums and memorial parks. But the poor cannot even have security of tenure in their graves. If their relatives fail to pay, their bones may be dug up and displaced. Do you call that justice? 

Here we see inequality that extends even beyond life. Sad to say, in the Philippines, there is inequality even in death. 

So, what has happened? Have burial plots become like market stalls—rented for a time, and if unpaid, simply vacated? Shouldn’t there be a principle that burial plots are beyond the commerce of man? 

To be fair, I understand the dilemma of local governments. As populations grow, cemetery space runs out. But is that not part of their function—to plan for the needs of the future? Morbid as it may sound, people die every day, and their final resting places should be part of long-term urban planning. 

This is where I think LGUs must innovate. Instead of relying only on traditional burial grounds, they could offer the option of cremation and build public columbaria. Cremated remains take far less space, but the decision to cremate should be up to the relatives. Old bones from temporary graves could also be respectfully transferred into communal ossuaries, again with the consent of the relatives. These are solutions that balance dignity with practicality. 

But here is the bigger question: should we not legislate permanent burial rights nationwide? At present, local ordinances can dictate how long one can “rent” a grave, and practices differ from city to city. That opens the door to abuse. 

What we need is a national law that guarantees permanent interment in public cemeteries. Such a law should prohibit “grave rentals” and ensure that remains are undisturbed unless the family consents or if a court orders it otherwise. Unauthorized exhumations should be penalized. 

The Commission on Human Rights has already pointed out that disrespectful handling of remains may even violate human rights. After all, how can we claim to value human dignity if we cannot even respect the dead? 

Of course, the space issue remains. But building columbaria is one solution. Eco-burial zones, where remains are interred in biodegradable urns, could be another. LGUs could also designate burial grounds for indigent families, ensuring that no one is denied a dignified resting place simply because of poverty. 

This leads me back to the Marikina case. Has there been proper closure? Have the displaced families been given justice? Or will this issue fade away until another cemetery scandal shocks us again? 

We cannot allow this cycle to continue. The national government, through Congress, should act now. At the same time, LGUs should step up in planning for sustainable and dignified cemetery services. 

The dead should not be treated as a burden to be managed. They are reminders of our shared humanity. If we cannot provide justice and equality even in death, what does that say about the kind of society we are building? 

For me, the call is clear: let us advocate for permanent burial rights. 

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-13-2025 

AUTONOMOUS LICE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AQUACULTURE

 AUTONOMOUS LICE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR AQUACULTURE 

Norway has done it again. The Norwegians, already leaders in aquaculture, are now deploying autonomous lice control systems that use computer vision to kill parasites in salmon pens. Imagine that—machines working 24/7, spotting sea lice and zapping them with precision, without chemicals, without stress, and without harming the fish. 

If they can do this for salmon, why not for milkfish (bangus), our national fish? Why not for groupers, or even maliputo? The truth is that lice are not the only parasites attacking farmed fish. We have nematodes, protozoans, fungi, and flatworms in our own fish pens. In fact, local studies have already documented how these parasites weaken fish, slow down growth, and reduce survival. If Norway is investing in technology to protect its aquaculture industry, why should we in the Philippines settle for outdated methods? 

Parasites are no small problem. Globally, sea lice infestations alone cause over $1 billion in losses every year. Locally, outbreaks of parasites like anisakid nematodes or “white spot” disease have devastated fish farmers, sometimes wiping out entire pens. The question is: do we want to continue fighting these outbreaks with costly chemicals, or do we want to leap ahead with sustainable, AI-powered solutions? 

This Norwegian technology offers us a glimpse of what is possible. But then comes the next question—how do we acquire it? Do we simply import it, or do we develop it ourselves? 

If we develop it locally, agencies like DOST, DICT, and BFAR should take the lead. DOST has the scientists, DICT has the digital infrastructure expertise, and BFAR knows the realities of aquaculture on the ground. With a proper collaboration, we could create our own Filipino version of AI-powered parasite control. On the other hand, if developing it from scratch would take too long, then let us seek help from Norway through the DFA. After all, that is what diplomacy should also be about—not just politics, but technology transfer. 

I propose we task our embassy in Norway to open a technology cooperation channel on aquaculture innovations. If they can use lasers and machine vision for salmon, we can adapt it for milkfish. Why not create a Philippine-Norway Aquaculture Technology Partnership? 

Let me point out that parasites are not only a threat to farmed fish—they are also a public health risk. Some, like anisakis worms, can infect humans if raw or undercooked fish is consumed. This means controlling parasites is not just about protecting farmers’ livelihoods—it is also about food safety for consumers. 

But let me go further: this lice-killing technology is only one example of how artificial intelligence (AI) can be applied to agriculture and aquaculture. Why not explore AI-powered systems for monitoring water quality in fish pens? Or for detecting early signs of disease outbreaks in ponds? Or even for predicting algal blooms that could suffocate fish stocks? 

This is why I believe there should be a joint task force composed of DOST, DICT, DA, and BFAR—not just to talk about AI, but to identify emerging technologies worldwide and see how they can be localized. We cannot just wait for technology to arrive at our doorstep. We must actively monitor, acquire, adapt, and innovate. 

Here is my challenge: can we imagine a barangay-level aquaculture model where small fish farmers can access low-cost, AI-driven parasite monitoring kits? Can we design modular systems that use sensors or cameras to detect fish health problems before they become disasters? Can we build bio-secure pens that reduce parasite infestations without relying on chemicals? 

Norway’s systems are not science fiction. They are already real and operating in over 200 salmon farms. If they can do it, why can’t we? 

In fact, the bigger question is: what other AI-powered technologies are out there for farming and fishing that we have not yet even considered? Drones that monitor rice fields, robots that sort harvests, sensors that track soil nutrients, apps that guide farmers in real time. The opportunities are endless—if we are willing to act. 

So let me end with a strong suggestion: the Philippines should not just be a passive consumer of foreign technology. We must be an active developer and adapter of AI systems for our own industries. Yes, let us learn from Norway. Yes, let us seek their help. But let us also invest in our own research and development. 

We owe it to our fish farmers. We owe it to our consumers. And most of all, we owe it to our future food security.  

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres 
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-12-2025