For weeks, many have asked me a simple question. It is an important question:
“Why speak out only now about the unlicensed ENP preparer and violations of PD 705 and PD 1998?”
My answer is based on three intertwined developments. The first is a new and material fact. The second is my academic training. The third is my consistent advocacy as an Environmental Planner.
First, a new and undeniable fact has emerged. The recent flooding in Cebu’s lowland communities is unprecedented. Long-time residents—many who have lived there for 30 to 50 years—told me the same thing. They have never seen floodwaters enter their homes. This includes even during the strongest typhoons. Statements like “Bisag bagyo sauna, wa gyud misud ang tubig diri” convey a shared ecological memory. “This is the first time in our lifetime” also conveys a shared ecological memory. These are not isolated anecdotes—they are community testimonies that mark a fundamental change in Cebu’s environmental landscape. For half a century these areas remained dry. Suddenly, they are underwater. Something upstream has shifted.
This new reality exposes how technical upland issues are no longer abstract violations. These include cutting slopes beyond 18%, disturbing watersheds, altering natural drainage lines, and removing vegetation. It also involves submitting environmental studies signed by unlicensed individuals. They now have downstream victims. When upland water behaves unnaturally, lives in the lowlands are placed at risk. The consequences of violating PD 705, PD 1998, PD 1586, and RA 10587 are now apparent. They manifest in Cebuano homes, streets, and livelihoods.
Second, my Master of Laws training at the University of Santo Tomas has given me a sharper perspective. It has allowed me to see these events through a legal lens. It also provides an environmental viewpoint. Studying Climate Change Law and Tenurial Instruments has given me a deeper understanding of several important topics. These include the constitutional right to a balanced ecology and the public trust doctrine. I have also gained insights into climate risk governance, community land rights, and upland–lowland hydrology. These doctrines are not theoretical; they mirror exactly what Cebu is experiencing today. The law comes alive when the ground realities match the very risks we study in class.
Third, this position is consistent with my long-standing advocacy as an Environmental Planner. For years, I have promoted slope-compatible development, watershed protection, hazard-aware planning, and compliance with environmental laws. My past writings show a clear stance: development must respect natural systems, or nature will respond. The recent flood only confirms what I have been warning about long before this event. This includes my repeated concerns about reclamation projects. These projects constrict coastlines and narrow river outflows. They weaken storm-surge buffers, reduce coastal water capacity, and block upland floodwaters. When disturbed uplands combine with reclaimed coastlines, the lowlands become the unavoidable casualty.
These three developments—a new environmental fact, reinforced academic grounding, and a history of advocacy—converge at this moment. This is the right and responsible time to speak out. This is not a late protest. It is a necessary one.
Cebu cannot continue developing its uplands, lowlands, and coasts without respecting the laws and natural systems that protect its people. With new evidence in plain sight, staying silent would be negligence.
To speak is not only a right—it is a professional duty.
Real LexEcon 