Aliping, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

A remedial directive under a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus that is directed only at the respondent specifically impleaded and proven responsible for a particular environmental harm does not violate equal protection absent intentional or purposeful discrimination, and does not offend due process where issued after bona fide proceedings in which the respondent was heard; such directive must, however, have factual basis.

The Santo Tomas Forest Reserve was created by Proclamation No. 581, issued by President Manuel L. Quezon on 8 July 1940, covering around 3,114 hectares in Tuba, Benguet for forest protection, timber production, and aesthetic preservation. Its natural springs sustain three Baguio Water District reservoir dams supplying potable water to households in Tuba and Baguio City and form the headwaters of the Bued River, which traverses Sison and San Fabian, Pangasinan and supports the San Fabian River Irrigation System. Petitioner Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr. was then a member of the House of Representatives for the lone legislative district of Baguio City and claimed a parcel within the reserve. Respondents Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon and others are residents of Baguio City and San Fabian, Pangasinan who rely on the reserve’s water sources.

The Santo Tomas Forest Reserve was created by Proclamation No. 581 issued on 8 July 1940 by President Manuel L. Quezon, covering around 3,114 hectares in Tuba, Benguet for forest protection, timber production, and aesthetic preservation. It spans five barangays and contains Mount Santo Tomas and Mount Cabuyao. Its natural springs sustain three Baguio Water District reservoir dams—Amliang Dam 1, Amliang Dam 2A/2B, and Amliang Dam 3—supplying potable water to some 4,176 households in Tuba and Baguio City. The springs also form the headwaters of the Bued River, which runs about 31 kilometers downstream through Sison and San Fabian, Pangasinan, empties into Lingayen Gulf, and is the principal source of the San Fabian River Irrigation System supporting around 1,144 hectares of farmlands.

On 15 April 2014, mountain trekkers Francis S. Likigan, Jr., Eric S. Tanglib, and Christian T. Labascan wrote to then Benguet Governor Nestor B. Fongwan about tree-cutting and excavation at Mount Santo Tomas. The information reached the DENR-CAR and then the CENRO of La Trinidad. CENRO organized a team that conducted an ocular inspection on 25 April 2014 and follow-up investigations on 23 and 27 May 2014. The inspection found tree-cutting and earth-moving within Mount Santo Tomas; these were pursuant to construction of two new roads in Barangay Poblacion, Tuba—one spanning 1.5 kilometers from Sitio Amliang to Sitio Pongayan, and another covering 1.14 kilometers from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Bekel. The area fell within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve. No Environmental Compliance Certificate, Tree Cutting Permit/Special Land Use Permit, or Road Right of Way/Excavation Permit supported the construction. An estimated 306 trees (293 Benguet pine and 13 Alnus) and 455 saplings (415 Benguet pine and 40 Alnus) were cut, with total damage of ₱10,314,531.40. Earth-moving caused heavy soil erosion that silted tributaries supplying Amliang Dam 3, and one road ended only 50 meters from Amliang Creek. Three backhoes marked “Goldrich Construction,” “RUA Construction,” and “BLC Construction & Aggregates” were present.

CENRO tagged petitioner Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr., then a member of the House of Representatives for the lone legislative district of Baguio City, as responsible for the earth-moving activities. The offending roads were later discovered to originate from a piece of land within the reserve claimed by petitioner. The PENRO of Benguet filed a criminal complaint before the provincial prosecutor against petitioner, Goldrich Construction, RUA Construction, and BLC Construction & Aggregates for violations of Sections 77 and 78 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the Revised Forestry Code, as amended. On 2 June 2014, the EMB issued a Notice of Violation cum Cease and Desist Order against petitioner and the construction companies for failure to secure an ECC in relation to the earth-moving activities. At a technical conference on 14 July 2014, petitioner admitted responsibility for an excavation project within his claim and for undertaking it without the necessary environmental permit. The EMB imposed a ₱50,000 penalty against petitioner for violation of Section 4 of PD No. 1586.

On 28 April 2014, the BWD inspected Amliang Dam 3 after observing turbidity in its water supply. The BWD attributed the turbid waters principally to road construction within and around the property claimed by petitioner, which caused excavated earth and debris to be dumped along creeks and tributaries leading to the dam, and to small-scale mining above Amliang Dam 3 that caused soil erosion. The BWD submitted its findings to then Tuba Mayor Florencio V. Bentrez, who relayed them to petitioner. In a letter dated 21 May 2014 to Mayor Bentrez, petitioner stated that he would undertake measures to avoid further damage to plants, trees, and the Amliang Dam of the BWD and assured that any damage would be minimized if not avoided. On 26 June 2014, the BWD filed a complaint before the Pollution Adjudication Board against petitioner and the construction companies for violation of Republic Act No. 9275, the Clean Water Act of 2004; the PAB instructed the EMB to investigate. On 18 July 2014, the EMB inspected the reserve and concluded that pollution of Amliang Creek came from different sources and that the exact percentage contributed by each source would be difficult to determine.

Moved by these events, respondents Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon, Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, Sheree M. Nolasco, Marie A. Balangue, Nonnette C. Bennett, Dr. Teresita F. De Venecia, Antonio J. Supremido, Jr., and Pastor Gener Tandoc filed before the Supreme Court a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and a Writ of Continuing Mandamus against petitioner, several DENR officials, the Tuba municipal government, and the Tuba police station. They complained of four ongoing anthropogenic activities: (a) illegal tree-cutting and massive earth moving in Mount Santo Tomas caused by petitioner’s road construction project; (b) illegal small-scale mining; (c) expansion of vegetable gardens and residential areas due to unwarranted issuance of tax declarations over lands within the reserve; and (d) use of Mount Santo Tomas and nearby Mount Cabuyao as sites of relay towers and radars by television and communication companies. They claimed these activities caused soil erosion and pollutants that reduced the volume and quality of water flowing into Amliang Dam 3 and the Bued River, violating the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of inhabitants of Tuba, Baguio City, and San Fabian, Pangasinan. They prayed for an ex parte Temporary Environmental Protection Order and for judgment granting the writs with directives against the DENR, the Municipality of Tuba, and petitioner.

The Supreme Court issued a Resolution on 30 September 2014 ordering the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan, referring the petition to the CA, and issuing a TEPO. Petitioner filed his return with the CA on 13 October 2014. In it, he admitted responsibility for excavation activities within his claim—a 2.6885-hectare estate consisting of vegetable land and rootcrop-camotal land located at Mami Cave in Barangay Poblacion—but denied involvement in road construction and tree-cutting outside that claim. He alleged that he only excavated to improve an existing access road to his claim, whose terrain was semi-rolling with a cliff, and averred that the roads emanating from his claim were not newly constructed but old logging roads. The impleaded DENR officials, Tuba municipal government, and Tuba police filed a joint return acknowledging threats to the reserve’s natural springs but asserting they had not been remiss in their duties and citing prompt responses and accountability measures. After proceedings, the CA on 6 May 2015 found the first, second, and third activities existed and confirmed their adverse effects on water quality in Amliang Dam and the Bued River, but found no evidence that the fourth activity—relay towers and radars—had been detrimental to the reserve and its springs. The CA found petitioner caused earth-moving in his claim without an ECC, tree-cutting permit, special land use permit, road right of way, or excavation permit; his 21 May 2014 letter was an admission of damage caused by his earth-moving; and the roads, both going in opposite directions from his claim, were not old logging roads but newly opened, with a total length of more than 2 kilometers requiring a permit under PD No. 1586. The CA relied on the 30 May 2014 Memorandum of CENRO Officer Julio Lopez, the judicial affidavit of Felix Siplat, petitioner’s return, and an ocular inspection on 16 February 2015 confirming the roads’ connection to petitioner’s claim.

• Equal Protection: Petitioner argued that item 4(a) of the dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision violates his right to equal protection of the laws because it unduly discriminates against him; the decision does not require other similarly situated persons residing within the reserve to refrain from enhancing or improving their respective claims, and he is only one of hundreds actually residing and maintaining a vegetable garden within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve.
• Due Process: Petitioner maintained that item 4(a) deprives him of the right to use his property without due process of law.
• Factual Basis for Items 4(b) and (c): Petitioner argued that items 4(b) and (c) are unjust and have no basis because they assume he was guilty of tree-cutting and earth-moving activities outside his claim, yet no evidence was presented during the proceedings a quo to prove such fact.

• Equal Protection: Whether item 4(a) of the dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision violates petitioner’s right to equal protection of the laws.
• Due Process: Whether item 4(a) deprives petitioner of the right to use his property without due process of law.
• Factual Basis for Items 4(b) and (c): Whether items 4(b) and (c) are unjust and have no factual basis because they assume petitioner was guilty of tree-cutting and earth-moving activities outside his claim without supporting evidence.

• Equal Protection: No. The directive exclusively against petitioner did not violate equal protection because he was the only resident and vegetable-garden owner impleaded and accused of the unique road-construction and earth-moving activity, and no intentional or purposeful discrimination was shown.
• Due Process: No. Petitioner actively participated in bona fide proceedings and was given ample opportunity to be heard; the directive was not arbitrary or oppressive but a necessary restriction on the acts found to cause siltation and degradation.
• Factual Basis for Items 4(b) and (c): No. Ample evidence linked petitioner to the tree-cutting and earth-moving within or without his claim, including his admissions, the CENRO report, Felix Siplat’s affidavit, and the CA’s ocular inspection; his bare claim that the roads were old logging roads was unsupported.

• Equal Protection: Item 4(a) was directed exclusively at petitioner and did not impose a similar restriction on other residents and owners of vegetable gardens within the reserve, even though the proliferation of residential areas and vegetable gardens was recognized as a potential contributor to degradation. The disparity was not discriminatory. Unlike the other residents and owners, petitioner was impleaded as a respondent in the Kalikasan petition; he was the only resident and vegetable-garden owner so impleaded. The Kalikasan petition listed a cause of action specific only to petitioner—illegal tree-cutting and earth-moving resulting from a road construction project—and no similar activity was imputed to the others. Item 4(a) was a specific remedial response to petitioner’s earth-moving activities, which the CA confirmed as a major contributor to the siltation of streams and tributaries leading to Amliang Dam 3 and the Bued River. A similar directive could not have been made against the other residents and owners because they were never impleaded, nor accused or proven to have engaged in comparable earth-moving activities. Under People vs. Dela Piedra, the prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted is not by itself a denial of equal protection; intentional or purposeful discrimination must be clearly shown, and discriminatory purpose is not presumed. No evidence showed that the CA intentionally discriminated against petitioner; the directive was conceived to provide specific relief for an anthropogenic activity unique to him, and the situations of the other residents and owners were different. Thus, item 4(a) did not violate equal protection.
• Due Process: Although item 4(a) prohibited petitioner from exercising certain acts within his claim, it did not violate due process. The voluminous records showed that the assailed decision, including the subject directive, was the product of bona fide proceedings in which petitioner actively participated; he was given ample opportunity to be heard before the verdict against him. The directive was also not arbitrary or oppressive. It only permanently enjoined petitioner from performing acts to develop or enhance his claim—such as bulldozing, levelling or any earth-moving activity, and continuing the road construction project—which were the same acts identified in the assailed decision as having contributed to the siltation and continuing degradation of the streams and tributaries leading to Amliang Dam 3 and the Bued River. The directive was a necessary restriction to prevent further damage to the waterways indigenous to the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve.
• Factual Basis for Items 4(b) and (c): Petitioner’s challenge to the factual basis of items 4(b) and (c) lacked merit. There was ample evidence linking him to the tree-cutting and earth-moving activities in the reserve, whether within or without his claim. The CA observed that it was a conceded fact that petitioner caused earth-moving activities in his claim without any environmental compliance certificate, tree-cutting permit, special land use permit, road right of way, or excavation permit. In his 21 May 2014 letter, he undertook to institute measures to avoid further damage to the plants, trees, and dam of the BWD, which was in effect an admission that damage had been caused by his earth-moving activities; he also acknowledged that because the ongoing excavation was at a higher elevation, the soil tended to go down. While petitioner admitted causing the levelling of his claim, he denied responsibility for the road construction emanating from his claim. Evidence on record, however, proved that the roads, both going in opposite directions from his claim, were not old logging roads as he claimed but were newly opened and had a total length of more than 2 kilometers, requiring a permit under PD No. 1586. The CENRO Memorandum dated 30 May 2014 of CENRO Officer Julio Lopez reported illegally felled trees and saplings along two roads in Barangay Poblacion—one from Sitio Amliang to Sitio Pongayan and another from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Bekel—and observed that both roads were new or recently constructed; based on the location of the felled trees and saplings, he determined that the tree-cutting was made pursuant to the construction of such roads. The judicial affidavit of Felix Siplat, a resident of Santo Tomas, supported the observation regarding the construction of two new roads. Petitioner’s return contained two critical admissions: that he instituted earth-moving and soil excavation activities within his claim to improve an existing access road, and that the road from Sitio Amliang to Sitio Pongayan and the one from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Bekel were connected to or originated from his claim; he nevertheless averred that such roads were not new but already logging roads. Taken together, the evidence revealed that the tree-cutting and earth-moving activities were made pursuant to the construction of two roads in Barangay Poblacion, that the roads were new and emanated from petitioner’s claim, and that petitioner’s earth-moving activities within his claim coincided with the road construction precisely to improve access between his claim and such roads. The confluence of circumstances clearly indicated that the construction of the two offending roads was made at the behest of petitioner and no other. The roads originated from his claim and were structurally designed to connect his claim to different sitios within Barangay Poblacion, evidently for his benefit and, as shown by the records, only for his benefit. His attempt to disassociate himself by insisting that they were old logging roads could not be given credence; the recent construction was attested by the CENRO and by Felix Siplat, while the allegation that the roads were existing logging roads was unsupported by any evidence save petitioner’s bare insistence. Having been established as the person responsible for the construction of the two new roads, petitioner was likewise accountable for the illegal tree-cutting and earth-moving activities, whether within or without his claim, that resulted from the construction. Items 4(b) and (c) were therefore sustained.

• Equal Protection — Intentional or Purposeful Discrimination — Unequal application of a law fair on its face violates equal protection only when there is intentional or purposeful discrimination; discriminatory purpose is not presumed, and clear and intentional discrimination must be shown. The Court applied this to reject petitioner’s claim: item 4(a) was directed only at him because he was the only resident and vegetable-garden owner impleaded and accused of the unique road-construction and earth-moving activity, and the directive was a specific remedial response to his proven contribution to siltation.
• Due Process — Opportunity to Be Heard and Non-Arbitrary Restriction — Due process is satisfied where the party actively participated in bona fide proceedings and was given ample opportunity to be heard, and where the challenged directive is not arbitrary or oppressive but a necessary restriction to prevent further environmental damage. The Court found these requisites present because petitioner testified and participated in the CA proceedings, and item 4(a) only enjoined the acts identified as causing siltation and degradation.
• Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus — Tailored Remedial Directives — A court may issue specific remedial directives against a respondent found responsible for environmental harm, and such directives may be tailored to the respondent’s proven activity. The Court upheld items 4(a) to (c) because they responded to petitioner’s unique earth-moving and road-construction activities and were supported by the record.
• Factual Basis for Environmental Remedial Orders — Remedial orders in environmental cases must rest on factual support. The Court sustained items 4(b) and (c) because petitioner’s admissions, the CENRO Memorandum, Felix Siplat’s affidavit, and the CA’s ocular inspection established that the roads were newly constructed from his claim and that he was responsible for the resulting tree-cutting and earth-moving.
• Admissions and Bare Denial — A party’s admissions in pleadings and correspondence may establish facts against him, while a bare denial unsupported by evidence cannot overcome positive evidence. The Court gave weight to petitioner’s return and 21 May 2014 letter and rejected his unsupported claim that the roads were old logging roads.

• "The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Dela Piedra, states the controlling equal protection standard applied to reject petitioner’s claim that item 4(a) discriminated against him.
• "The directive is nothing more than a specific remedial response to the earth moving activities committed by petitioner within his claim that had been confirmed, during the proceedings a quo, to be a major contributor to the siltation of the streams and tributaries leading to the Amliang Dam 3 and the Bued River." — This passage explains why the directive exclusively against petitioner was not discriminatory but was tailored to his proven environmental harm.
• "The voluminous records of this case attest that the assailed decision—including the subject directive—had been the product of bona fide proceedings in which petitioner actively participated." — This passage is the Court’s core due process finding, grounding the conclusion that petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard.
• "The confluence of the foregoing circumstances, to Our mind, clearly indicates that the construction of the two offending roads was made at the behest of petitioner—and no other." — This passage is the Court’s central factual finding on petitioner’s responsibility for the road construction, supporting the mitigation and rehabilitation orders.

• People vs. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil. 31 (2001) — Cited analogously for the rule that the prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted does not, by itself, constitute a denial of equal protection; intentional or purposeful discrimination must be clearly shown, and discriminatory purpose is not presumed. The Court relied on this precedent to reject petitioner’s equal protection challenge to item 4(a).

• Proclamation No. 581 (8 July 1940) — Created the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve in Tuba, Benguet for forest protection, timber production, and aesthetic preservation, covering around 3,114 hectares. The reserve was the protected area at the center of the Kalikasan petition and the CA’s remedial directives.
• Sections 77 and 78, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277, s. 1987 and Republic Act No. 7161 — Penalize cutting, gathering, or collecting timber or other forest products without license and unlawful occupation or destruction of forest lands. The PENRO of Benguet filed a criminal complaint against petitioner and the construction companies under these provisions.
• Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1586 — The EMB imposed a ₱50,000 penalty against petitioner for violation of this provision in relation to his excavation project without the necessary environmental permit; the CA also noted that the newly opened roads, with a total length of more than 2 kilometers, required a permit under PD No. 1586.
• Republic Act No. 9275 (Clean Water Act of 2004) — The BWD filed a complaint before the Pollution Adjudication Board against petitioner and the construction companies for violation of this law, prompting the EMB investigation into the pollution of Amliang Creek.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle for petitioner’s Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA Decision and Resolution.
• Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology — Invoked by respondents in the Kalikasan petition as the right violated by the activities that reduced the volume and quality of water flowing into Amliang Dam 3 and the Bued River; the Court’s decision proceeded on the CA’s factual findings and remedial directives.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur.