LA TRINIDAD, Benguet – A court ordered a municipal mayor and a resident to cease and desist from engaging in all excavation and development activities being undertaken within portions of the Shilan communal forest following the filing of an environmental case by the municipal government against them.
In a 20-page decision, Judge George Manaois, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 10 also ordered outgoing Kabayan Mayor Florante Bantales, Jr., Elaine Besitan and all persons acting for and in their behalf to provide unimpeded access to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the La Trinidad municipal government, through their authorized agents, for the protection and rehabilitation of the forest.
The court also directed Bantales and Besitan to conduct full and necessary restorative measures over the affected area at their own expense under the close supervision of the DENR-Car and the La Trinidad municipal government to ensure their compliance with the said order.
Records show that the La Trinidad municipal government, through former legal officer and now Councilor Bartolome Baldas, Jr., filed a petition for the issuance of a temporary environment protection order (TEPO) and permanent environmental protection order (PEPO) for the protection of the Shilan communal forest pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) 8371or the indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), Presidential Decree (PD) 705 or the Revised Forestry Code and other related environmental laws to enjoin Bantales and Basitan from conducting development activities and vacate portions of the Shilan communal forest.
The complaint asserted the rights of the indigenous peoples over the Shilan communal forest aside from ensuring the preservation and protection of the same from destructive activities of individuals that might compromise the state of the said forest which is one of the sources of water for the municipality.
Sometime in January 2020, Shilan residents noticed a land development within the vicinity of the communal forest that prompted the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources office (MENRO) to organize a team to investigate the said activity in the area.
In the investigation, it was discovered that Bantales and Basitan were responsible for the levelling and excavating with the use of backhoe, bulldozers and road rollers. It was also discovered that Bantales was engaged by Basitan to develop the said area being a contractor.
Basitan is the daughter of a certain Elmer Elan, who is the grandson of Embes Bentec, who once used the area as a greenhouse.
Further, neither Bantales nor Basitan had permit to conduct the excavation and development of the portion of the Shilan communal forest.
The complaint assorted the need to protect the Shilan communal forest for the people of Shilan and petitioned the court to stop the development activity and ban the defendants from entering the premises of the same aside from demanding that the already excavated land should be rehabilitated and protected through the construction of a sloe protection wall to prevent further destruction and degradation of the forest.
In their joint answer, Bantales and Basitan alleged that the case should not be an environmental case as it a ruse to oust them from the ancestral land which the latter and her predecessor-in-interest have cultivated and occupied since time in memorial.
Moreover, the creation of the communal forest is not part of the customs and practice of the Ibaloi tribe.
The court found the complaint filed by the La Trinidad municipal government as partially meritorious and notwithstanding the claim of the defendants that the assailed property is not within the Shilan communal forest and their excavation activities have caused plausible and harmful threat to the environment.
It added that the present rules of procedure in environmental cases is not precluded to apply in activities made in a private property, which cause damage, harm and an imbalance to the environment.
The court pointed out that it cannot give credence to Basitan’s argument that the property being developed is outside the Shilan communal forest as even assuming that she is entitled to possession over the lot, she cannot indiscriminately undertake development activities and ignore all government regulations, insisting on her property right.
The court stipulated that irrefragably, the developments and improvements implemented by Bantales and Basitan has caused serious and irreversible damage to the environment and that they could not show any permit that sanctions the property development they have undertaken. The defendants did not even present any development plan that would maintain and protect the environment which is an outright violation of the principle of sustainable development that requires that development activities should not compromise environmental protection.
According to the decision, the defendants had the opportunity to show good faith when they initially agreed to the conduct of a relocation survey which would have settled the actual location and identity of the property they claimed and that it is not found within the Shilan communal forest but they did not make good their undertaking and opted to forego with the proposed relocation survey, thus, the court cannot patently rely on their claim that the site of the structures they built is not part of the communal forest.
The court ruled that any development activities introduced in the Shilan communal forest, without the consent of the State, through the DENR, shall be considered as a threat to the people’s right to a balance and healthful ecology. The continued excavation activities of the defendants present a plausible and harmful threat to the people’s environmental rights, thus, it is necessary to issue the demanded protection order to stop the defendants from doing any further developmental activity to prevent environmental degradation within and adjacent areas within the communal forest.
The court precluded the defendants from conducting any further activity in the area, except for rehabilitation and restoration measures and to avoid further threat or damage to the Shilan communal forest and prevent serious and irreversible damage to the environment, the issuance of an environmental protection order is proper.
The court maintained that only through real action may property rights be adjudicated and not in an environmental case and that it has no authority to rule on the propriety of Bantales and Basitan’s possession over the area. By Dexter A. See
