Today, Gus Agosto, a licensed Environmental Planner, sent his formal reply to the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD), signaling a continuing exchange on the review of the Cebu City Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) 2023–2032.
The exchange brings into focus a critical issue in Philippine land use planning: the alignment of existing planning practices with Republic Act No. 11995, or the Philippine Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounting System (PENCAS) Act.
Gus Agosto, a former ADB Consultant, stressed that “the law is already in force.” Consequently, its requirements—especially the integration of environmental and natural capital considerations into planning and decision-making—are neither prospective nor optional, but are binding elements of the existing legal framework governing land use.
While the Department has emphasized the need for technical readiness, including the development of standardized datasets and frameworks, it is important to underscore that institutional readiness does not suspend legal obligation. A clear distinction must be made between full technical implementation and minimum compliance. Even at present, there are sufficient tools—such as hazard mapping, watershed delineation, and environmental constraints analysis—to begin integrating ecological limits into planning decisions.
Deferring integration to the “next CLUP cycle,” which may span nearly a decade, risks allowing land use decisions to proceed under frameworks that do not reflect current legal and environmental realities. In a region like Cebu, which continues to face recurring disasters and environmental stress, such delay raises serious concerns about the adequacy of planning safeguards.
Recent events—including the Binaliw dumpsite collapse in January 2026 and the widespread devastation caused by Typhoon Tino in 2025—underscore the real-world consequences of land use decisions that fail to fully account for environmental risks. These incidents highlight the urgency of ensuring that planning frameworks evolve in step with both law and lived experience.
“The issue is not whether we can fully implement PENCAS today, but whether we can justify continuing to approve land use decisions that ignore a law already in force. We already know where the risks are. The responsibility now is to ensure that planning decisions reflect that reality—before the next disaster forces the correction.” Consultant Agosto said.
The objective is not to disrupt planning processes, but to strengthen them. A transitional approach—where PENCAS principles are integrated to the extent practicable while full systems are being developed—offers a balanced and legally sound path forward.
The question is not whether we are ready to implement the law, but whether we can afford not to.
Following is my letter reply to the DHSUD:
HON. ATTY. RAMON QUINTIN CLAUDIO C. ALLADO
Undersecretary
Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD)
Kalayaan Avenue, Diliman
Quezon City
CC : DIRECTOR, LEGAL SERVICE
Re: Response to DHSUD Letter dated 16 February 2026
On the Review and Implementation of the Cebu City CLUP 2023–2032
Dear Undersecretary Allado:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 16 February 2026 concerning the review and implementation of the Cebu City Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) 2023–2032 in relation to the Philippine Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounting System Act (PENCAS, Republic Act No. 11995).
While I appreciate the Department’s recognition of natural capital accounting’s role in land use planning, I respectfully register strong reservations regarding the proposal to defer its integration until complete frameworks, datasets, and guidelines are issued—or to limit it to the next CLUP cycle.
1. Immediate Binding Effect of the PENCAS Act
Republic Act No. 11995 is in full force and binds all government agencies, including DHSUD, in their administrative functions. The absence of complete technical frameworks or datasets does not suspend this obligation; administrative convenience cannot supersede a statutory mandate.
2. CLUP Approval as a Continuing Administrative Act
CLUP review and approval constitute an ongoing administrative function that must align with laws in effect at the time of the decision. Approving a CLUP without incorporating PENCAS requirements undermines its substantive legal validity, irrespective of procedural compliance.
3. Impropriety of Deferral to the Next Cycle
Deferring the integration of PENCAS to the “next cycle”—effectively a decade from the current 2023–2032 planning horizon, especially in a context marked by historical delays in plan updating—is untenable in the face of recurring and intensifying disasters in Cebu. Recent events, including the January 2026 Binaliw dumpsite collapse that claimed 36 lives, and Typhoon Tino (2025), which left at least 158 fatalities, dozens missing, and thousands injured across Compostela, Liloan, Balamban, Danao City, and Cebu City, underscore the grave consequences of inadequate land use planning.
These incidents are not isolated occurrences, but manifestations of systemic vulnerabilities—many of which may be linked to outdated or insufficiently responsive planning frameworks. In this light, a policy of deferring compliance with the PENCAS Act risks perpetuating land use decisions that fail to reflect environmental constraints and hazard realities. This, in turn, increases foreseeable risk and undermines the duty of planning authorities to align land use regulation with existing legal mandates and evolving environmental conditions.
4. Distinction Between Full Implementation and Minimum Compliance
Full technical implementation may await standardized systems, but minimum transitional compliance is feasible now using available tools like hazard mapping, watershed delineation, and environmental constraints analysis. Ecological limits can thus inform planning without full PENCAS operationalization.
5. Request for Clarification
In view of the above, I respectfully seek clarification on:
i. Whether DHSUD plans to approve CLUPs omitting PENCAS requirements;
ii. Whether interim or minimum compliance measures apply to LGUs pending full PENCAS rollout; and
iii. Whether the Department contemplates transitional guidelines to align current planning with legal mandates.
6. Reservation of Rights
This letter is without prejudice to further actions to ensure land use planning complies with the law and addresses environmental and developmental imperatives.
7. Closing
My intent is not to hinder planning but to affirm that natural capital integration is now a legal imperative, not mere policy.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully yours,
Augusto B. Agosto, JD
Environmental Planner
Real LexEcon 