USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS

 USING A PORTABLE HYDROPOWER DEVICE WITHOUT DAMS 

It is a classic dilemma that has faced human civilization since electricity was discovered: how do we tap the power of flowing water without building dams? 

Dams have given us abundant electricity, but they also come with risks. If a dam bursts, the consequences are catastrophic. Even without accidents, the very act of building a dam often destroys human settlements, wildlife habitats, and agricultural lands. And yet, because of growing demand for electricity, the case for building dams usually wins. 

But now comes an innovation from Germany that might just change the equation: a suitcase-sized portable hydropower device that generates electricity without the need for a dam. This invention can be deployed in rivers or streams and produce enough power for 20 households—including refrigeration and small appliances. Multiple units can even be linked together to power larger communities. 

Can you imagine what this means for our country? Think of our many off-grid barangays, our upland communities in Mindanao, our island towns that remain unconnected to the national grid. Instead of waiting decades for grid extension—or relying on expensive diesel generators—what if they could simply place a portable turbine in a nearby stream and have instant renewable energy? 

The reports say this German device, often referred to as the HydroCase, is already commercially available. NGOs have begun placing orders, and trial runs have been piloted in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. It is not just a concept—it is already being used. 

This raises the next question: what about the Philippines? Could the Department of Energy (DOE) take the lead in conducting pilot projects here? Could we ask the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to engage with the German government or manufacturers for technology transfer or partnership? 

We must not waste this opportunity. God has given us the blessing of many rivers and streams, from the Cagayan River in the north to the Agusan in the south. These waterways could become sources of clean energy—without the cost, disruption, and ecological damage of large dams. 

I also ask: why stop at buying the technology? Could our Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and our local universities develop their own versions, perhaps cheaper, using local materials? If German engineers can do it, surely Filipino engineers can too. Imagine barangay-level cooperatives managing shared turbines, using apps to monitor output, and powering cold storage for fishers or rice mills for farmers. 

The beauty of this device is that it embodies the very principles we say we want for our development path: renewable, decentralized, low-cost, and community driven. It eliminates reliance on kerosene lamps and diesel generators. It avoids ecological disruption. And it empowers even the smallest communities to be energy self-sufficient. 

Of course, there are challenges. Who manages the devices? How do we ensure fair access to the water source? How do we protect the equipment from theft or damage? These are governance questions that LGUs and cooperatives would have to address. But these are manageable issues compared to the enormous problems caused by dam building. 

Let me suggest something bold: the Philippines should create a National Program for Micro-Hydropower without Dams. This could bring together DOE, DOST, DFA, DTI, and LGUs. Its mandate: acquire, adapt, and deploy these technologies nationwide, starting with the poorest, most remote communities. 

Just think--with a few thousand of these units, we could light up every barangay in the archipelago. And if we pair them with solar and wind systems, we will have a truly resilient, renewable energy future. 

This German invention is a game-changer. But it will only change our game if we act on it. Otherwise, we will watch other countries leap ahead while we stay in the dark—literally. 

So let us start the conversation now. Let us pilot these portable hydropower devices in our rivers and streams. Let us make energy sovereignty a reality for our barangays. 

Because at the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want to keep building dams—or do we want to start building the future? 

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

12-14-2025 

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