Second of 3 parts
WHAT is clearly established for now is that the private resorts in Bohol and Masungi are inside protected areas. It is also clear that they both claim to be inside privately titled properties. Facially, it can be admitted that the construction of resorts within protected areas appears to be a clear violation of Section 18 of Republic Act 11038, which amends Section 20 of RA 7586, specifically letter "o" of the enumerated lists of prohibited acts.
What is however not clear is whether privately titled lands inside protected areas are covered by the prohibition or, at the very least, if the punitive provisions do not apply to them considering that the entire Section 18 is preceded by an exempting qualifier that reads "Except as may be allowed by the nature of their categories and pursuant to rules and regulations governing the same." This is a legal loophole that can be exploited, particularly considering that the tenor of RA 11038 in relation to private existing rights appear to be more enabling, when it stated in Section 20 (Section 22 in the amended RA 7586) that "All property and private rights within the protected area and its buffer zones already existing and/or vested upon the effectivity of this Act shall be protected and respected in accordance with existing laws: Provided, That the exercise of such property and private rights shall be harmonized, as far as practicable, with the provisions of this Act." It is therefore an open question whether privately titled properties inside protected areas, in the guise of "respecting" and "protecting" them, would be considered as a distinct category of land use, which qualifies as an exemption under Section 18.
This is a loophole in the law that should be addressed and remedied. Certainly, we do not want unscrupulous private business interests to run around these legal openings to get away with their acts that would otherwise be deemed as a violation of the intent and the spirit of RA 11038.
More fundamentally, however, is the issue of whether the private land claims being made by these resort owners merit to be treated as legitimate and valid. There should be intense scrutiny of the nature and authenticity of the documentary proof of ownership being presented by these resort owners.
News reports suggest that many of the resorts in Bohol are indeed titled, with the rights to ownership sealed and perfected by appropriate documentary evidence. The same could not, however, be said of the resorts in Masungi. There, the chronology appears to show that whatever private rights being claimed are premised on Presidential Decree 324 issued by President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in 1973 that declared certain areas of the Marikina Watershed as alienable and disposable (A and D) lands.
However, Marcos Sr. reversed this order in 1977 through Proclamation 1636 and reverted these lands to their original classification as a protected area. It should be noted that even before Proclamation 1636, the Revised Forestry Code, PD 705, issued in 1975 already provided that all lands that are earlier declared as A and D but are at least 18 percent in slope shall be reverted to forest lands and become part of forest reserves. Only those that are already titled or with approved public land application, or have been continuously occupied for more than 30 years, are exempted. There is no evidence so far that any of the lands earlier declared by Marcos Sr. as A and D fall under the exemption. In fact, a representative of the local government unit (LGU) of Baras has confirmed in a recent news interview with News 5 that none of these resorts in Masungi are on privately titled lands.
In fact, if there is any further stronger proof that these resorts in Masungi are not in titled lands within the protected area, it would be the fact that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is now facilitating the application of these resorts for a Special Agreement on Protected Areas (SAPA). A SAPA is a tenurial instrument given to provide parties access rights to use the land, which include the establishment of ecotourism facilities and camp sites. By its very nature, a SAPA is awarded only to those without existing private property rights.
In the case of Bohol, it is relevant to know when the lands on which the resorts are built were issued titles. If these were issued before the promulgation of RA 11038 in 2017, then the provision of Section 20 would apply to them. And even if the titles were issued before 2017, former president Fidel Ramos had already proclaimed Chocolate Hills as a protected landscape in 1997. It behooves us to ask the DENR how can it be possible that despite this that titles were still issued to private parties.
The law has existing loopholes, but bureaucratic malpractice further renders the law toothless. The claims of private land ownership inside protected areas, whether legitimate in the case of some resort owners in Bohol, or not in the case of those in Masungi, are not isolated and confined in these areas. There are many other instances where lands inside protected areas are issued titles, and these titles, or claims thereof, are legitimized no less than by offices and officials in the DENR. There are reports that claims to private ownership of parcels of lands in Masungi even bear their signatures.
It should be emphasized that the presence of resorts and infrastructures within protected areas is not facially illegal. The mere fact that the DENR issues SAPAs is enough proof. However, the fundamental requisite is that certain requirements have to be met, and proper approvals and permits have to be secured. It is in failing to comply with these requirements that the private resorts in Bohol and Masungi are assailed. But what is even more disturbing is that these all emanated from the failure of the DENR and the LGUs to properly implement the law.
Next: An issue of flawed laws and bureaucratic malpractice
Read The Rest at :
