natres_sm deforestation in baguio 16 oct 2015

7/21/2019 NatRes_SM Deforestation in Baguio 16 Oct 2015

1/10

Natural Resources and Environmental LawJD4203 | Atty. Ron Gutierre

DEFORESTATION IN SM CITY BAGUIO: WHO IS THE REAL THIEF?

Change is permanent. Up to what extent of our natural environment are we willing

to trade off for these changes?

Introduction

Baguio City, popularly known as the City of Pines, is among the many areas of thePhilippines rich in natural forest. Below is an aerial view of Baguio City:

However, over the course of the 20th century the forest cover of the Philippines droppedfrom 0 percent down to 20 percent, as a result of deforestation.

!eforestation is the action or process of clearing of forests. "t is also defined as thestate of having #een cleared of forests.$"t is the permanent destruction of forests inorder to make the land availa#le for other uses.2!eforestation has #een so prevalent inthe Philippines that in total, %& species are endangered, and four were alreadyeradicated completely. 'nly (.2 percent of total rainforest has #een left. Based on an

1)vaila#le at http:**www.merriam+we#ster.com*dictionary*deforestation. ast accessed 'cto#er (, 20$-.

!aycelle Anne ". #astillo | Nieel !at$ryn R. %ernando
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deforestationhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deforestation


2/10


analysis of land use pattern maps and a road map, an estimated /. million hectares offorests were lost in the Philippines from $/(% to $/.

Pinning down from Philippines to Baguio City, deforestation has #een put on spotlightwhen groups of concerned residents of Baguio manifested petitions to stop the

uprooting and #alling of %( )lnus 1aponica trees, / pine trees, and %2 saplings to paveway for 3 City Baguio4s redevelopment or e5pansion pro1ect. 6he redevelopment isset to create another #uilding in uneta Hill. )ccording to 3, the e5pansion is certified#y the 7 8reen Building Council4s eadership in 9nergy and 9nvironmental !esign99!.

"n ;anuary 20$-, when the nation is preoccupied with the Papal visit in 3etro 3anila,the giant real estate company was tagged as uestioned area, following the favora#le decisionof the Court of )ppeals, which upheld the trial court decision dismissing the saidcomplaints of the groups of concerned residents of Baguio and setting aside the

previously issued 6emporary 9nvironment Protection 'rder 69P' that restrained theimplementation of the pro1ect e5pansion.

6he removal of the trees in Baguio City was done through earth#alling. 9arth#alling,according to retired !9?@ !irecotr @osalio 8oAe, is the method of transplanting trees."n the 9cosystems @esearch and !evelopment ervice 9@! @esearch !igest, theydefined earth#alling as the process in which seedlings or saplings are lifted with eartharound the root system.

)fter such earth#alling of trees done #y Baguio4s


3/10


6he complainants said that in general, the issue raised awareness among the people ofBaguio on the ill effects of corporate greed on the environment.

9ach side has their own version of contentions:

The Complainants Concerned residents

)dverse effect on the environment and irrepara#le damage.

95acer#ation of the aerial situation in ession @oad that will #e detrimental to the

health of the residents of the City of Baguio.

@egularity of the issuance of the 6ree Cutting and 9arth+Balling Permit.

iolation of the oning 'rdinance of Baguio City

iolation of the ocal 8overnment Code ection 2, in relation to ection 2&.

The Defendants SM Group

Permits were issued #ased on strict compliance with applica#le rules and

regulations.

Compliance with the 6ree Cutting and 9arth+#alling permit #y conducting pu#lic

consultations.

arious measures to mitigate any pro#a#le impact of the removal of the affected

trees, like reforestation efforts within 3 City Baguio premises and even in otherparts of the country.

6he #enefits of the 95pansion pro1ect far outweigh any likely impact that the

removal of the affected trees will #ring to the environment in line with theiradvocacy for environmental protection and sustaina#le development.

A((&ic!)& L!*"

6he $/ Constitution

Sction +,-6he tate shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and

instill health consciousness among them.%

Sction +.-6he tate shall protect and advance the right of the people to a #alanced

and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. -

95ecutive 'rder ?o. 2(, s. 20$$

4)rticle "", ection $-, $/ Consitution of the Philippines.

5)rticle "", ection $-, $/ Consitution of the Philippines.



4/10


Sction /-/- 6he !9?@ is likewise prohi#ited from issuing*renewing tree cutting permitsin all natural and residual forests nationwide, e5cept for clearing of road right of way #ythe !PDH, site preparation for tree plantations, silvicultural treatment and similaractivities, provided that all logs derived from the said cutting permits shall #e turned

over to the !9?@ for proper disposal. 6ree cutting associated with cultural practicespursuant to the indigenous Peoples @ight )ct "P@) aw may #e allowed only su#1ectto strict compliance with e5isting guidelines of the !9?@.

@epu#lic )ct ?o. (-$

6he law that prohi#its and punishes the cutting, destroying or in1uring of planted orgrowing trees, flowering plants and shru#s or plants of scenic values along pu#lic roads,in plaAas, parks, school premises or in any other pu#lic ground.

@epu#lic )ct ?o. $&0 E 6he ocal 8overnment Code of the Philippines

Sction /.-!uty of ?ational 8overnment )gencies in the 3aintenance of 9cologicalBalance. + "t shall #e the duty of every national agency or government+owned orcontrolled corporation authoriAing or involved in the planning and implementation of anypro1ect or program that may cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non+renewa#le resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and e5tinction ofanimal or plant species, to consult with the local government units, nongovernmentalorganiAations, and other sectors concerned and e5plain the goals and o#1ectives of thepro1ect or program, its impact upon the people and the community in terms ofenvironmental or ecological #alance, and the measures that will #e undertaken toprevent or minimiAe the adverse effects thereof.

Sction /0-Prior Consultations @e>uired. + ?o pro1ect or program shall #e implemented#y government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in ections 2 c and 2&hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is o#tained:Provided, 6hat occupants in areas where such pro1ects are to #e implemented shall not#e evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have #een provided, in accordance withthe provisions of the Constitution.

!9?@ )dministrative 'rder ?o. 200(+(0

6he administrative issuance that provides for the rules and regulations to implement thePhilippine 9nvironmental and "mpact ystem 9". 6his provides for the process ofapplication for 9nvironment Compliance Certificate 9CC for 9nvironmentally Critical

)reas 9C).

Sction .- A((!&

)ny party aggrieved #y the final decision on the 9CC * C?C applications may, within $-days from receipt of such decision, file an appeal on the following grounds:



5/10


a. 8rave a#use of discretion on the part of the deciding authority, or#. erious errors in the review findings.

6he !9?@ may adopt alternative conflict*dispute resolution procedures as a means to

settle grievances #etween proponents and aggrieved parties to avert unnecessary legalaction. Frivolous appeals shall not #e countenanced. 6he proponent or any stakeholdermay file an appeal to the following:

!eciding )uthority Dhere to file the appeal93B @egional 'ffice !irector 'ffice of the 93B !irector93B Central 'ffice !irector 'ffice of the !9?@ ecretary!9?@ ecretary 'ffice of the President

Baguio ocal 8overnment Polcy

Process in securing 6ree+cutting Permit etter re>uest addressed to the City 3ayor for tree+cutting % copies

Dhole picture of the affected tree*s and related structures.

!ocument as to the status of land holdings on the location of the affected tree*s.

urvey plan of the lot 2 copies 'riginal*6ransfer Certificate of 6itle ( copies or 6a5 !eclaration ( copies or 6ownsite )pplication )uthoriAation of owner of property Certificate from Barangay Captain as to the status of the land and the affectedtree*s.

!ocuments in case of B7"!"?8 C'?6@7C6"'?*9GC))6"'? and*or other9GP)?"'?*"3P@'939?6.

)pproved Building Permit )pproved e5cavation*e5pansion*fencing permit ( copies )pproved ite development Plan indicating the relative location of the affectedtree*s Blue*Dhite Print 9nvironmental Compliance Certificate!ocument in case of 7B!"""'?*C'?!'3"?"73 and*or other large relateddevelopment. )pproved u#division !evelopment Plan ( copies )pproved u#division @oad !evelopment Permit ( copies

)pproved ite !evelopment Plan indicating the relative location of the affectedtree*s Blue*Dhite Print 9nvironmental Compliance Certificate

?ote:6he applicant or his*her representative should #e availa#le during the inspectionfor the identification*scaling of the affected tree*s.



6/10


6he applicant or his*her representative should also follow up his*her re>uestpersonally or through telephone num#ers + C9?@': %%2 + ($&, C9P3': %%2 +/0.



7/10


Wh' Th 1tition Mu"t F!i&

Dhile there is no issue as to the legal standing of the complainants since the>uestioned deforestation done #y 3 is of transcendental importance and have

intergenerational implications, #eing an environmental case, this case is still likely to fail.

"t appears that the complaint filed #y is a premature cause of action.

6he complainants did not >uestion the issuance itself of the of the )mended9nvironment Compliance Certificate through an appeal with the ecretary of the !9?@in accordance with the provisions as stated under ection & of !)' 200(+(0.

"t is to #e stressed that a case filed without the e5haustion of availa#le administrativeremedies renders a cause without the e5haustion of action premature. Conse>uently,resort to the courts prior to the availing of this administrative remedy makes the cases

dismissi#le. 7ndou#tedly, this pronouncement applies to these 9nvironmental Cases.6here was clearly no invocation of any e5ception to the e5haustion rule #y thecomplainants at any state of the proceedings. Further, they have not shown anyadministrative act to show that the issuance of the Permits was patently illegal. ?ocorrespondence whatsoever was shown to prove that the complainants had given thegovernment agencies a chance to remedy whatever was alleged to #e improperlyperformed #y them. 6here was no showing of any impractica#ility or oppressiveness inapplying the doctrine.&

)s to the authority of the local government, 3ayor !omogan stressed that they have noauthority to stop 34s mall e5pansion pro1ect #ecause it complied with all the re>uisites

of its pro1ect. "f they order the stoppage of their pro1ect, it will open the floodgates to thefiling of administrative and criminal charges against them.

6he 3ayor further e5plained that private property owners have rights over their privateproperties that must #e protected and upheld pursuant to the Civil Code of thePhilippines that it is very difficult to stop the mall e5pansion pro1ect considering that 3was a#le to secure all the necessary permits for their pro1ect

)side from re>uiring 3 management to post the P& million cash #ond, the !9?@ alsomandated 3 to plant $00 assorted tree seedlings for every tree that will #e cut or atotal of &,000 tree seedlings three months after the commencement of its malle5pansion pro1ect to serve as its compensatory re>uirement for the trees that will #e cut.

Furthermore, the 3ayor said that the rights of private owners over their properties wasunderscored #y the C) decision which stated that pu#lic consultations are no longer

!"ailable at http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2#12/12/court-dismisses-sa"e-1$2s-case-

against-sm-baguio/. %ast accessed &ctober 15' 2#15.



8/10


re>uired for the mall e5pansion pro1ect #ecause it is #eing undertaken #y a private entityover its private property.

6he mayor also cited that while areas in the city are to #e developed for variouspurposes, there are also areas that will #e preserved for green#elt purposes in order to

sustain the city4s state of the environment #eneficial to the present and futuregenerations.

)s to the violation of the ocal 8overnment Code, it is clear that ection 2 does notapply to the case at #ar #ecause 3 is a private 1uridical person. "t is not the ?ational8overnment that pursues the pro1ect or development. )s such, !9?@ does notnecessarily have to consult local government. !9?@ only assesses and grants the9nvironmental Compliance Certificate 9CC pursuant to !)' 200(+(0.

)s to the legality of the permit and the adverse effect to the environment, the @6C andCourt of )ppeals decision stated that the complainants lacked proof to support their

claim that 3 failed to comply with re>uirements for its e5pansion and also lacked proofof damage of the planned e5pansion to the environment.

6he Court of )ppeals had ruled that while while admitting that the cutting orearth#alling of said trees will indeed have a negative effect on the environment, theevidence adduced #y the 3 8roup would show that it will not result to irrepara#lein1ury to the environment and detrimental to the residents of Baguio City.

"t is worth to note that parts of testimony of the complainants4 witness, !r. Pali1on, weresu#stantially lifted from scientific literatures. "n fact, he studied the actual health of thesu#1ect trees, and assessed the mitigating measures #ased on the 9P@3P as approved#y the proper regulatory agency 6?+2 3arch 20$$. 6he witness was consulted #y3PH to study the Benguet pine and alnus trees in uneta Hill and has e5amined 2 ofthe su#1ect trees around two months prior 3arch 2, 20$2 6?, 3arch 2, 20$2, p.$$. 6he witness, a duly >ualified tree e5pert 6?, 3arch 2, 20$2, p. -, admitted thatthere will, indeed #e a reduction in the trees4 #eneficial contri#utions to the environment,if removed. He >ualified, however that it is not su#stantial and that the environment6?, 3arch 2, 20$2, p. --. He testified that there will #e no haAardous effect on thehealth of the people of Baguio if the su#1ect trees are taken out of the particular areawhere 3 City Baguio is located. 6his is #ecause the removal will #e compensated #ythe green #uilding that will #e constructed, the 2.000 trees already planted in BusolDatershed and (0,000 more trees that will #e planted within the ne5t three years 6?,3arch 2, 20$2, pp. $%+$-. Based on an article written #y ?owak and Crane on o5ygenproduction #y ur#an trees in the 7nited tates pu#lished in the )r#oriculture and 7r#an

( Id.

$ )!-*.+. ), o. 1##245



9/10


Forestry ;ournal 95hi#it 2, the witness testified that the diminution of '5ygen will not#e su#stantial #ecause of the removal of the $2 trees 6?, 3arch 2, 20$2, p. $.. /

Furthermore, with regard to the legality of the permit, the Court of )ppeals appreciatedthe presumption of regularity.


10/10


95cess space of the catchment tank that will provide additional parking

that will help decongest traffic along 7pper ession @oad

"t should #e noted that people need to learn to define the issues or pro#lems toaccurately come up with the right position and conse>uently, the right solutions. Dhile it

is not

natres_sm deforestation in baguio 16 oct 2015

Documents