CA stops tree-cutting in Naga City
SPARED Magsaysay Avenue, one of the busiest streets in Naga City shown here on Jan. 8, remains lined with trees, spared from the tree-cutting activities permitted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 2017. —Naga City Government Facebook photo
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the government’s appeal to overturn a lower court’s ruling that nullified the issuance of special tree-cutting permits (STCPs) in Naga City as they were granted for road-widening projects rather than for public safety.
The CA, in a decision dated Jan. 31, ruled that the permits violated environmental laws and held officials from the Department of Works and Highways (DPWH) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) liable for the cutting of the trees.
The CA upheld the permanent enforcement of the temporary environmental protection order (Tepo) to safeguard the last remaining mahogany trees in Barangay San Felipe of Naga, an independent component city in Camarines Sur.
READ:
“The cutting of trees is anchored on the necessity for public safety in the construction of the roads. The DENR, in [issuing] the STCPs … did not expressly state that the cutting of trees was necessary for public safety but merely mentioned Presidential Decree No. 953,” the CA said, referring to the law requiring the planting of trees in certain places and penalizing unauthorized cutting, destruction, damaging and injuring of certain trees, plants, and vegetation.
Article continues after this advertisementSpecial permits
The case dates back to March 2016, when the DPWH Camarines Sur Second District Engineering Office requested tree-cutting permits from the DENR for road widening and drainage improvement projects in Naga City.
Article continues after this advertisementMore than a year later, the DENR issued the STCPs, allowing the removal of 58 trees along Magsaysay Avenue. This was followed by another permit authorizing the cutting of 25 trees along Naga-Carolina-Panicuason Road.
By June and July 2017, the DPWH and DENR had begun tree-cutting operations in the affected areas.
Null, void
Concerned citizens and environmental advocates opposed the cutting and filed a petition with the DPWH, the Naga City Mayor’s Office, and the DENR Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (Penro) to halt the operations.
When they received no response, they complained to the Naga City Regional Trial Court (RTC) on Aug. 4, 2017, against the DENR and DPWH officials, seeking a Tepo.
The RTC granted the Tepo, stopping further tree-cutting operations and, on Nov. 16, 2018, declared the tree-cutting permits null and void, as they had been issued for road widening rather than public safety.
The RTC also held the DPWH and DENR officials liable, ordered them to pay P653,405.38 in environmental damages, and made the Tepo permanent for the remaining mahogany trees in Barangay San Felipe.
Maintenance
On March 15, 2019, the RTC modified its decision, creating an Environmental Rehabilitation Committee and mandating the DPWH and DENR to conduct tree maintenance.
In denying the government’s appeal, the CA noted that while public safety was considered, the primary reason for the tree-cutting was to make way for drainage construction along the specified national roads.
“This Court also notes that the number of trees allowed to be cut by the DENR was more than what the DPWH applied for. From an application of 53 trees, the issued STCPs even increased the count to 83 trees,” the CA said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Angelene Mary Quimpo-Sale.
While the CA pointed out that it could not be stated that the defendants-appellants acted in bad faith, as the DPWH submitted all the requirements to the DENR for the STCPs and even replaced each tree cut with 100 seedlings, it found that the DPWH officials failed to establish that the tree-cutting was necessary for public safety, violating PD 953.
In an interview on Monday, DENR Bicol Director Francisco Milla Jr. said they have just recently received a copy of the CA’s decision.
“Our office will be coordinating with the Office of the Solicitor General regarding the legal steps that may be taken by our office [in this matter],” Milla said. —with a report from Michael B. Jaucian
