In a recent SunStar interview, Architect Joseph Michael Espina urged Cebu to adopt a watershed-focused development model. This model is based on the JICA 2015 roadmap. His call for green belts, green loops, and floodplain restoration resonates strongly with many Cebuanos. They are still reeling from the devastation of Typhoon Tino.
There is no question that Cebu needs these reforms.
The real question is this:
Why were these measures not implemented when Architect Espina was the Cebu City Planning Coordinator? This was the very position with the power to bring these ideas to life.
For three years, he oversaw the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). He managed zoning decisions and upland development controls. He also handled the policy levers that determine whether Cebu’s growth protects people—or puts them in harm’s way. If the JICA model was already seen as the correct approach, why weren’t watershed-based zoning and green belt protections started? Why weren’t upland conservation rules and relocation landbanks initiated when he held the authority to pursue them?
This question becomes even more important when we examine the city’s official land-use data under his watch.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
The CPDO’s GIS data compares the 2020 existing land use to the proposed 2023–2032 CLUP. (See below). A clear pattern emerges:
Cebu’s land-use trajectory moved away from the very principles Espina is now advocating.
Here are the most critical changes:
- Forest lands reduced from 9,312 hectares to 2,892 hectares
A loss of 6,419 hectares of natural upland buffers. - Agricultural land collapsed from 13,322 hectares to 3,653 hectares.
This marks a reduction of 9,668 hectares. It greatly diminishes Cebu’s green belt and natural infiltration areas. - Commercial zoning more than doubled. It expanded from 983 hectares. The new size is 2,038 hectares.
Much of this expansion pushed uphill into barangays like Guadalupe, Banawa, Kalunasan, Lahug–Busay, Tisa, Buhisan, Pardo, Budlaan, and Pulangbato. - Residential zones decreased by 183 hectares
Shrinking livable space instead of preparing relocation areas. - Socialized housing remains limited to just 318 hectares
Only 1.06% of Cebu City’s land area—far too small to make relocation feasible. - Industrial land rose only from 43 hectares to 122 hectares
Just 0.41% of total land area—far below JICA standards for balanced economic growth. - Floodplains continued to be developed
Even where hazard maps warned against it.
In short, the uplands that should have remained green—forested, agricultural, or low-density—were rezoned. They were opened up for commercial, mixed-use, and estate development. The lowlands that should have been protected from encroachment remained under intense development pressure.
These outcomes contradict every principle of watershed conservation, upland protection, and green-belt planning that Espina now proposes.
The Contradiction We Must Confront
It is easy to speak about watershed protection now. Typhoon Tino has claimed lives and displaced families. It has also exposed the fragility of Cebu’s landscape.
But Cebuano communities must ask, fairly and respectfully:
If these solutions were essential, why did Architect Espina not implement them? He had the opportunity, mandate, and authority to do so.
And why does the CLUP he helped shape contradict the very policies he is now promoting?
These questions are not personal.
They concern the public interest.
They concern the future of Cebu’s safety and resilience.
Upland protection was not implemented. Relocation landbanks were not prepared. Watershed overlays were not adopted. Zoning was not aligned with hazard data. These failures directly shaped Cebu’s vulnerability long before Typhoon Tino.
Why This Matters Now
Typhoon Tino did not simply expose natural hazards—it exposed planning decisions.
When forest zones disappear,
when agricultural buffers are erased,
when uplands are commercialized,
when floodplains are built over,
when relocation sites remain unfunded,
—disaster becomes inevitable.
The suffering we witnessed in Banawa, Tisa, Talamban, Tingub, Tipolo, Pardo, and Guadalupe was not simply due to heavy rainfall. Other causes contributed significantly. It was the result of land-use patterns shaped over many years.
As Cebu rebuilds, we must avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Upland development proceeded without watershed logic. It lacked geohazard integration and long-term relocation planning.
Cebu Deserves Clear, Honest Planning
Cebuano communities deserve transparency—not just about future plans, but about the choices made in recent years that shaped today’s risks.
Moving forward requires two things:
- Forward-looking strategies firmly grounded in science, not rhetoric.
- A candid, honest reflection on past planning decisions, so that Cebu does not repeat the same dangerous patterns.
Only then can Metro Cebu build a land-use system that is coherent and hazard-sensitive. This system must be resilient enough to protect the city from future disasters.
Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office
Real LexEcon 