Why I Choose to Speak Out on Upland Development — And Why the Public Must Be Informed

In recent days, a former Cebu City planning official publicly commented on the concerns surrounding the Monterazzas development. This matter has become widely discussed in both local and national circles. The issue is already the subject of a Senate investigation, and the local government has likewise initiated its own review. The former official advised that concerns should not be raised through Facebook or media. Instead, they should be brought exclusively through formal government channels.

I acknowledge that formal complaints are important, and official processes must indeed be followed. In fact, formal complaints are now being prepared for submission to the appropriate national agencies. But urging silence does not resolve the issue.

But I must also be honest: flooding has reached communities that have never experienced it. Upland slopes are being altered without clarity on compliance with national laws. Environmental decisions affect thousands of people downstream. Staying silent is not an option. Speaking only within bureaucratic channels is not enough.

And what is worse, this approach shifts the focus away from the actual environmental and legal issues. It focuses on silencing public participation. This happens even as thousands of residents in the lowlands are dealing with unprecedented flooding. Urging people to stay quiet does not resolve the problem; it only deepens public confusion and delays accountability.

I speak publicly because environmental governance in the Philippines is built on public participation, public disclosure, and public vigilance. Our own laws require it. PD 1586 (the EIA System) underlines the public’s rights. RA 9729 (Climate Change Act), RA 11038 (ENIPAS Act), and RA 10587 (Environmental Planning Act) also support these rights. Additionally, even the 1987 Constitution itself emphasizes the public’s right to know what is happening in their environment. It also stresses their duty to stay informed.

Environmental harm does not happen in isolation. It does not wait for paperwork. And it does not confine its effects to the offices where documents are filed. It spills into homes, businesses, rivers, roads, and ecosystems.

The recent flooding in Cebu City’s lowland barangays is a painful reminder of this reality. People who never experienced flooding in their lifetime suddenly found water inside their homes. They deserve clear answers—not after months of internal review, but now. They deserve transparency on upland developments. They need clear information on slope stability and ECC issuances. It is necessary to confirm if laws like PD 705 and PD 1998 were followed. This is especially crucial in areas where slopes exceed the 18% restriction.

Public discussion does not undermine government processes. It strengthens them. It forms a record and mobilizes awareness. It gives voice to communities. They may not know how to navigate official channels. However, they certainly feel the consequences of development decisions made in the highlands.

Yes, I will file formal complaints. That is being done. But informing the public, raising awareness, sharing technical findings, and inviting civic discussion are equally necessary. They are not acts of defiance—they are acts of democratic participation. These actions are fully protected by our Constitution’s guarantee of access to matters of public concern. It also ensures the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

To the many who asked why I speak up: I speak because the public deserves the truth. I speak because environmental planning is not merely about documents—it is about people, communities, watersheds, and future generations. I speak because what happens in the uplands affects what happens in the lowlands. And I speak because silence, when there is a clear environmental risk, would do more harm. It would be a greater disservice than discomforting a few.

Transparency protects communities. Silence protects no one.

The Political Economy of Flooding in Cebu

Every flood follows the laws of physics—but the damage it brings follows the laws of politics and economics. To understand Cebu’s recurring floods, we must examine not just rivers and drains, but land markets, incentives, and power structures.

A civic group recently released a petition calling for accountability. They demand institutional reforms and immediate interventions after the November 4, 2025 flooding. There is a deeper structural truth behind these recurrent failures—one that cannot be resolved through flood-control works alone. Flooding in Cebu is not simply a hydraulic engineering problem. It is a political economy problem. It is shaped by land markets and governance incentives. It also involves institutional weaknesses and the complex interactions between urban development and ecological systems.

The physical manifestations of Cebu’s flooding are evident. They include overflowing rivers, silted channels, blocked waterways, undersized drainage lines, and deteriorated uplands. These issues are symptoms of underlying drivers embedded in the way land is valued, used, occupied, and regulated. These systemic forces determine where people settle and where capital flows. They dictate how infrastructure is prioritized. They also influence which environmental limits are observed or ignored. Understanding the city’s flood crisis requires a new perspective. We must shift from short-term engineering responses. We should focus on a long-term examination of Cebu’s land governance and socio-economic structures.

The Limits of Engineering-Centered Solutions

For decades, Cebu’s response to flooding has relied on traditional engineering. This includes the expansion of drainage networks. It also involves the construction of embankments and the deepening of rivers. Additionally, there is the installation of floodwalls and diversion channels. These are necessary interventions and form part of any modern urban infrastructure system.

However, the severe flooding of November 4 demonstrated an important fact. Structural measures cannot compensate for degraded watersheds. They cannot make up for constricted waterways either. Additionally, land-use choices that contradict hydrological realities are not offset by these measures.

The core limitations are clear:

Upstream forests have thinned, reducing water absorption.
Urban surfaces have become more impermeable, rapidly increasing runoff.
Natural retention areas have been converted into residential and commercial zones.
Rivers have narrowed due to settlements, obstructions, and encroachments.
Drainage systems designed for past rainfall patterns are now overwhelmed by climate-intensified storms.

Engineering solutions, however well-designed, cannot fully absorb the consequences of decades of unsustainable land use and misaligned development patterns.

Land Market Pressures and Development in High-Risk Areas

Cebu’s flooding problem cannot be separated from the economics of land. As urban land becomes increasingly scarce and valuable, development pressures intensify toward hazard-prone areas:

river easements and riparian buffers,
wetlands and marshes,
floodplains and low-lying coastal areas,
steep upland slopes and watershed zones.

These areas historically served as natural drainage or water retention systems. Yet economic incentives—combined with regulatory concessions—have enabled their transformation into buildable parcels.

This trend reflects a market-driven logic: when prime land is limited, the pressure to develop environmentally sensitive areas becomes stronger. The result is a spatial configuration that maximizes short-term economic gains but increases long-term exposure to floods.

Thus, flooding is not merely caused by extreme rainfall. It is shaped by land scarcity and speculative development. Permissive regulatory environments also play a role in its formation. It is shaped by the interaction between land scarcity, speculative development, and permissive regulatory environments.

Political Incentives Favor Visible Infrastructure Over Preventive Governance

Flood-control infrastructures are politically compelling projects. They offer:

highly visible outputs,
significant budgets,
recurring maintenance contracts,
and narratives of action and responsiveness.

Because they are technically complex, such projects often escape broader public scrutiny. At the same time, some measures reduce long-term flood risk most effectively. These include watershed rehabilitation, strict easement enforcement, and climate-informed zoning. However, they are politically challenging. They require displacements, long-term planning consistency, and actions that may produce limited immediate political returns.

This imbalance in incentives explains why Cebu sees many flood-control structures. These structures do not always address the underlying drivers of vulnerability. Sometimes, they even worsen the situation.

Flooding persists not simply because engineering solutions are inadequate. It also occurs because political incentives prioritize short-term, highly visible outputs. These outputs are prioritized over structural preventive governance.

The issue is not a lack of technical knowledge among agencies. The problem continues because actions conflict with the interests of those who hold political and economic power.

This is the essence of the political economy argument.

River Degradation and Extractive Activities

Siltation, riverbed changes, and sediment buildup are major contributors to flood severity. These issues are exacerbated by:

sand and gravel extraction,
upland clearing for agriculture or development,
informal excavation,
and poor adherence to environmental safeguards.

These activities are sustained because they are economically profitable and often backed by political or economic influence. Despite their known impacts, they persist due to entrenched interests along the value chain—from local employment to construction demand.

Thus, river degradation is not merely a technical or enforcement issue. It is a governance challenge linked to resource extraction, revenue dependence, and regulatory gaps.

Enforcement Challenges Reflect Institutional Capture and Regulatory Asymmetry

Calls for strict enforcement frequently assume that institutions lack capacity or technical competence. In reality, enforcement failures are often tied to:

local political alliances,
informal settlements that represent vote-rich constituencies,
economic actors with significant influence over land use decisions,
fragmented authority across agencies,
inconsistent application of zoning and environmental rules.

Hazard-prone areas become zones of negotiation rather than regulation. This institutional dynamic contributes to weak compliance, reinforcing land-use patterns that increase flood exposure.

Flooding, therefore, arises not only from natural or physical factors but also from institutional capture and uneven regulatory power.

From Flood Control to Flood Governance

The arguments focusing on removing obstructions, correcting flawed structures, or improving inter-agency coordination are important. Yet they must be integrated into a broader, structural framework of flood governance, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of:

land markets,
watershed systems,
ecological integrity,
urban density,
climate projections,
institutional frameworks,
and political incentives.

A governance-centered approach requires:

climate-sensitive and risk-informed land use planning,
protection and restoration of watershed and riparian systems,
strict implementation of easements and hazard-zone regulations,
upstream retention strategies and nature-based solutions,
green infrastructure that enhances urban permeability,
basin-wide management across LGU boundaries,
resilient zoning and development controls,
and institutional reforms that shield planning from political and economic capture.

Cebu’s long-term resilience depends on integrating these elements into a coherent governance structure.

Conclusion

The November 4, 2025 flood event underscored the limitations of relying primarily on engineering-centric flood control. While structural interventions remain essential, they are insufficient against systemic land-use pressures. Institutional weaknesses and economic incentives drive risky development.

Flooding in Cebu is a political economy issue—rooted in how land is valued, governed, and contested. Meaningful solutions require a transition from reactive flood-control efforts. These solutions must embrace a comprehensive approach rooted in land governance, ecological integrity, institutional accountability, and long-term urban planning.

Cebu can only move toward true resilience through this shift. It will reduce its vulnerability to the increasingly severe impacts of climate and development pressures.

36 Years Later: Why Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform Matters?

Thirty-six years since its 1989 ruling, Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform remains the cornerstone of Philippine expropriation law—defining “just compensation” as the full and fair equivalent of property taken, not merely its cash price, and proving that reform and fairness can coexist under the rule of law.

It has been more than three decades since the Supreme Court decided Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989). Yet, the echoes of that landmark case still resonate across today’s debates on land rights, expropriation, and social justice. The case remains a constitutional compass for expropriation and land valuation. It guides the ongoing struggle to harmonize social justice with property rights.

This 1989 decision — penned by Justice Isagani A. Cruz — did more than uphold the constitutionality of agrarian reform under President Corazon Aquino. It defined how the State must pursue justice without committing injustice.

The 1989 decision, penned by Justice Isagani A. Cruz, arose at a pivotal moment. The Philippines had just ratified the 1987 Constitution. This called for genuine agrarian reform as a cornerstone of social justice. Acting under that mandate, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, launching the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). These measures authorized the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands. Payment was provided not solely in cash. It also included government bonds, shares of stock, and other financial instruments.

Many landowners objected, arguing that such payment schemes were confiscatory and unconstitutional. They contended that agrarian reform could not override the constitutional protection of private property. They insisted that compensation must be paid in full and in money. The case reached the Supreme Court. The issue was not the legitimacy of reform itself. Instead, it was about the manner by which it was to be carried out.

Justice Cruz spoke for the Court. He upheld the constitutionality of the government’s agrarian reform measures. He delivered what would become one of the most defining interpretations of the Constitution’s takings clause. He explained that agrarian reform is “police power in purpose but eminent domain in method.” It is justified by the public welfare. Yet it involves the taking of private property. Therefore, it requires the payment of just compensation.

🟩 “The measure of compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The word ‘just’ is used to intensify the meaning of the word ‘compensation,’ to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. Such payment need not always be made in money. It may be in other things of equivalent value, as long as it is real, substantial, and just.”
— Justice Isagani A. Cruz, Association of Small Landowners (1989)

The Court emphasized that the question of just compensation is judicial in nature. Courts have the final word on what is fair and just, not any administrative or legislative body. This passage marked a turning point in Philippine constitutional law. It did not abandon market value as the measure of compensation. Instead, it broadened the understanding of how justice may be delivered in its equivalent form.

Justice Isagani Cruz, writing for the Court, clarified that the measure of compensation remains the property’s market value. This is the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller under normal conditions.
What the Court changed was not the measure, but the form.

The Court held that just compensation need not always be paid in cash. The owner must receive the full and fair equivalent of the property’s market value. This means that payment can be made through bonds, stocks, or other financial instruments, provided they reflect true, realizable worth.

The logic was both constitutional and practical. Implementing agrarian reform on a national scale would have been impossible. This task involves millions of hectares. It would not be feasible if the government were required to pay every landowner in full cash. The Court allowed flexibility. However, it insisted that the total value received must be real, substantial, and equivalent to what was taken.

In other words:

The market value remains the yardstick,
while equivalent value is the means of payment.

The Court recognized that the price paid must reflect the full and fair value of the property taken. It should be the true market value. However, under exceptional circumstances, the government will pay through instruments of equivalent value. These instruments can be bonds or shares, as long as their worth is real and realizable. This doctrinal shift was both pragmatic and principled. The State can pursue a massive redistribution of land. It did so without collapsing under fiscal burden. Meanwhile, it safeguarded the constitutional rights of landowners to fair recompense.

Later decisions, including Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco (2004) and Land Bank v. Honeycomb Farms (2009), reaffirmed this doctrine. Courts must determine just compensation based on market indicators, which include comparable sales, income potential, and zonal valuations. This holds even if the payment is made through other equivalent means. Thus, while the form of payment may vary, the standard of fairness does not. The Small Landowners decision preserved the essence of justice. It ensures that the value taken must be replaced by the same value returned. This must be done in whatever lawful form.

Beyond its technical rulings, the case represents a moral and constitutional reconciliation. It proved that reform need not be confiscation. Social justice must operate within the boundaries of the rule of law. The State may pursue redistribution and public welfare. However, it cannot deny fairness to those from whom the property is taken. In that balance lies the very heart of constitutional democracy.

More than three decades later, the decision continues to influence modern expropriation cases, such as Republic v. Arellano University (G.R. No. 260038, 2025), where the Court reaffirmed that just compensation cannot be based merely on administrative valuations or outdated schedules of market values. It must reflect all relevant market conditions. It should consider the property’s location and potential. Other factual considerations must make compensation truly fair. These modern cases, while dealing with urban development and public infrastructure, trace their constitutional lineage directly to Small Landowners.

The ruling’s wisdom resonates today in broader contexts. These include urban redevelopment, socialized housing, and environmental expropriations. It is also present in discussions on carbon markets and the just transition. Its enduring message is that reform must be fair, and fairness must be real. The law may adapt to new social challenges, but its foundation in justice and due process remains unchanged.

Association of Small Landowners remains a testament to the idea that progress and fairness are not adversaries but partners. The decision did not merely uphold agrarian reform; it humanized it. It emphasized that while the State may right historical wrongs, it must ensure the integrity of law is preserved. Thirty-six years later, it continues to serve as a reminder to both the government and citizens. Social justice should not be pursued at the expense of constitutional justice. No taking, however noble its purpose, is truly just without just compensation.

Why It Matters Today

The decision remains a bedrock precedent in property law, agrarian reform, and expropriation. It clarified the balance between individual property rights and collective welfare. This decision shapes how courts interpret “just compensation” in modern takings. These include cases from agrarian lands to urban redevelopment, road widening, and environmental expropriations.

In contemporary jurisprudence (e.g., City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University, 2025), the same principles continue to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated, while allowing the State to pursue inclusive, socially just development.

For further reading:

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (1989) https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jul1989/gr_78742_1989.html

2. City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University, 2025 https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260038-city-government-of-pasay-vs-arellano-university/

Clarifying “Market Value” in the Supreme Court’s Pasay–Arellano Decision Post

The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently released a press statement. It is titled “SC: Just compensation in land expropriation must consider all relevant factors, not just market value.” This statement refers to its decision in G.R. No. 260038 (City Government of Pasay v. Arellano University).

The ruling reiterates a fundamental principle in expropriation law. Just compensation must be real, full, and fair. It is determined not by a single administrative figure, but through judicial evaluation of all circumstances surrounding the property.

However, the Court’s post also offers a chance to clarify a common terminological confusion. The use of “market value” as cited in the post does not refer to true open-market value. Instead, it refers to the Schedule of Market Values (SMV). Local assessors use this administrative instrument for taxation purposes.

Arellano University owned an 805-square-meter parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro, Pasay City. The City Government turned this property into a public road. It is now known as Menlo Street. This was done without expropriation proceedings or payment of just compensation.

The Pasay City Assessor’s Office had assigned the land a value of Php200 per square meter. This was based on its 1978 Schedule of Market Values. The trial court later used this figure to compute compensation.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that such assessor-based valuations are not determinative of just compensation. They can guide fiscal assessments, but they are not substitutes for market evidence or judicial determination.

Market Value vs. Schedule of Market Values

This distinction lies at the heart of both valuation and constitutional law.

Concept	Meaning	Purpose	Authority
Market Value	The price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in an open market. Both parties act knowledgeably and without compulsion.	Reflects real market behavior, used in appraisals, investments, and expropriation.	Defined under PVS 102 and IVS 104; affirmed in Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 146587 (2002).
Schedule of Market Values (SMV)	A uniform benchmark value prepared by the local assessor for tax assessment purposes.	Ensures equity in real property taxation under the Local Government Code.	Authorized under Sections 212–216, LGC of 1991.

The PVS (Philippine Valuation Standards) and IVS (International Valuation Standards) define market value as:

The estimated amount as the price for which an asset exchanges between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This occurs in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing. The parties act knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.

In contrast, the Schedule of Market Values is an administrative tool. It is updated every few years. It is designed to standardize taxation but not to represent real-time market dynamics.

The Supreme Court has consistently drawn this line in cases such as NPC v. Manubay Agro-Industrial Corp. and Republic v. CA: the SMV may be indicative. However, it cannot replace the judicial process of valuation. This process ensures constitutionally mandated just compensation.

My Letter to the Supreme Court

To support accurate public understanding of this distinction, I have respectfully written to the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
My letter explains that the “Php 200 per square meter market value” is mentioned in the decision. It comes from the 1978 Schedule of Market Values. This should not be mistaken for actual market value as understood in valuation and jurisprudence.

You may read my full letter here.

In essence, my correspondence acknowledges the Court’s sound reasoning. It emphasizes the need to maintain terminological precision. This principle is crucial not only to valuation professionals but also to the legal system itself.

The phrase “market value” may appear technical. However, in matters of public taking, it defines the line between administrative convenience and constitutional fairness.
When government takes private property, just compensation must reflect the property’s true worth—its economic value, not its tax-assessed figure.

Ensuring this distinction honors both the rule of law and the integrity of valuation practice. It safeguards landowners’ rights and guides courts, assessors, and appraisers toward a shared language of fairness and precision.

The City of Pasay v. Arellano University decision reinforces a timeless principle:

Just compensation is not a matter of administrative convenience—it is a constitutional right grounded in fairness and factual valuation.

As valuation professionals, we have a responsibility to ensure that public discourse around “market value” remains technically accurate. It must also be legally sound. Clarity in language leads to clarity in justice.

Why the DOJ Holds the Key to the Witness Protection Program

One of the landmark reforms in the Philippine criminal justice system is Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. The law was enacted to encourage witnesses to testify in criminal cases by granting them immunity from prosecution and providing protection and benefits that ensure their safety and livelihood. At the heart of this reform is the central role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose authority was tested in the high-profile case of Webb v. De Leon (G.R. Nos. 121234, 121245, 121297, August 23, 1995).

Under Section 12 of R.A. 6981, the DOJ has the power to admit witnesses into the program. Once admitted, the certification issued by the DOJ must be given full faith and credit by public prosecutors. This means that prosecutors are barred from including the admitted witness in any criminal complaint or information, and if the witness has already been charged, the prosecutor is duty-bound to move for his or her discharge. Admission also grants the witness immunity from prosecution for the related offenses, together with access to rights and benefits such as security, relocation, subsistence, and employment assistance.

This provision was challenged by petitioner Hubert Webb, who argued that only the courts, under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, have the authority to discharge an accused as a state witness. He claimed that allowing the DOJ to decide on the admission of witnesses intrudes upon judicial prerogatives and violates the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the prosecution of crimes is fundamentally an executive function, anchored on the constitutional duty of the executive branch to “faithfully execute the laws.” The discretion to determine whether, what, and whom to charge—including who may be used as a state witness—properly belongs to the DOJ as part of its prosecutorial power. The Court clarified that while Rule 119 empowers courts to discharge an accused once jurisdiction has been acquired, this authority is jurisdictional rather than inherent. It ensures that proceedings remain orderly, but it does not strip the DOJ of its primary role in deciding witness admissions under R.A. 6981.

The decision underscores the delicate balance between the branches of government: the executive determines who to prosecute and who to use as a state witness, while the judiciary supervises proceedings once a case is filed. By upholding the DOJ’s role, the Court strengthened the Witness Protection Program as a vital tool for combating crime. As the DOJ itself pointed out, many cases in the past had been dismissed due to witnesses refusing to testify out of fear or economic dislocation. R.A. 6981 and its interpretation in Webb directly address this challenge by protecting witnesses and ensuring their cooperation.

The Webb v. De Leon ruling affirms that the DOJ’s role in the Witness Protection Program is constitutionally sound and crucial for the administration of criminal justice. By empowering the DOJ to certify and immunize state witnesses, the law tackles one of the biggest obstacles in criminal prosecutions: the silence of those who know the truth. In a justice system often hampered by fear and intimidation, the law sends a clear message—witnesses will be protected, and their courage will not be in vain.

You may download the Supreme Court case here:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_121234_1995.html

Restitution Is the Law, Not a Loophole

Senator Erwin Tulfo’s recent statement during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the flood control mess — that sometimes you have to “bend the law” to heed the people’s cry for restitution — has drawn both applause and criticism. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla affirmed his sentiment, but some quarters now warn that such remarks suggest moving outside the Constitution.

In my view, there is no need to bend the law at all. The law itself, through both the Constitution and the Civil Code, already mandates restitution.

Accountability in the flood control mess does not stop with public officials. Even private contractors who enriched themselves from irregular projects are bound by law to return the money. The Civil Code, through Articles 19 and 22, prohibits unjust enrichment, while the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 27) commands the State to take effective measures against graft and corruption. Restitution therefore, is not a bending of the law — it is the law itself at work.

The Civil Code reinforces this duty through two key provisions:

Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
Article 22: “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”

Taken together, these make restitution a legal requirement. It is not a technicality, nor a concession to public clamor. It is the natural consequence of unjust enrichment.

When protesters at Luneta shouted “Ibalik ang pera ng bayan,” they were not demanding that the law be ignored or bent. They were, perhaps unknowingly, demanding that the law be faithfully enforced. The people’s voice and the law’s command align perfectly here.

This is why I believe Senator Tulfo’s passion is not at odds with the rule of law. The better framing is this: the law itself already bends toward justice. To demand restitution is not to defy legal principles but to uphold them.

My take is simple: restitution is not just a moral duty, nor is it merely a populist cry. It is a constitutional and legal obligation. There is no conflict between the will of the people and the rule of law on this issue. Both demand the same thing: that what was wrongfully taken from the Filipino people must be returned.

We live in abnormal times when asking to return stolen money is treated as if it were illegal.

How an Expert Witness Prepares for Trial

“An expert witness is expected to assist the court in understanding technical evidence by providing independent, objective, and reasoned opinions based on established expertise.” — Tortona v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, Jan. 17, 2018

Appearing in court as an expert witness is a serious responsibility. It demands more than just professional qualifications—it requires thorough preparation, clarity in communication, and strict adherence to both legal and ethical standards. Whether in the field of real estate appraisal, engineering, accounting, or any technical discipline, the effectiveness of an expert witness lies in how well they understand their role and how clearly they can assist the court.

The preparation begins with a full understanding of the case. The expert must study the pleadings, judicial affidavits, motions, and any relevant reports to grasp the context of the legal dispute. This understanding helps frame the opinion the expert will give. Once the scope of the engagement is clear, the expert proceeds to draft and finalize their report. The report must be factual, supported by data, and rooted in accepted professional standards—such as the Philippine Valuation Standards for appraisers or the relevant codes of ethics and methodology in other professions. This report, along with the judicial affidavit required by the Rules of Court, becomes the backbone of the expert’s courtroom presentation.

Communication with counsel is vital. The lawyer and the expert must align on what issues the expert will testify to, what documents and evidence will be referred to, and how the expert can best support the legal theory of the case without overstepping their bounds. A good lawyer will also simulate a mock direct and cross-examination to help the expert anticipate difficult or technical questions, and practice answering in a way that is truthful, clear, and calm.

On the day of the trial, the expert must come prepared. This means dressing professionally, arriving early, and bringing all necessary materials—copies of the report, affidavits, supporting documentation, and visual aids such as charts or maps. During testimony, the expert is first qualified by the court. Once recognized as an expert in their field, they proceed to give their opinion under oath, guided by the direct examination of counsel. The expert must maintain composure during cross-examination, avoid defensive behavior, and be honest if they don’t know the answer to a question. Judges value precision and honesty over attempts to impress or advocate for one party.

Ultimately, the credibility of an expert witness rests not only on credentials but on the ability to explain complex matters in a straightforward and impartial manner. A well-prepared expert supports the truth-seeking function of the court. By grounding their opinion in verifiable data and presenting it clearly, the expert becomes a bridge between technical knowledge and legal judgment. Preparation, professionalism, and integrity are the foundation of any expert testimony that truly helps the court reach a just and informed decision.

Serving as an expert witness requires more than just subject matter expertise. It demands professionalism, preparation, and precision. Whether you’re a real estate appraiser, economist, forensic analyst, or valuation consultant, the courtroom is your stage to translate complex findings into reliable, understandable truth.

With proper preparation, your testimony can become the turning point in delivering justice.

Just Compensation Starts with Just Valuation

The right to just compensation is a cornerstone of constitutional property protection in the Philippines. But just compensation cannot exist without just valuation—an objective, market-based assessment of property value that respects both legal mandates and professional standards. This is the essential promise of Republic Act No. 12001, or the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RPVARA), enacted in 2024.

RPVARA introduces a uniform, professional standard for property valuation throughout the country. It mandates the use of the Philippine Valuation Standards (PVS), a comprehensive set of guidelines based on internationally recognized valuation principles. These standards are no longer optional. They are now the legal benchmark for determining real property values in the Philippines.

This legislative mandate gives flesh to Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” In numerous decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that “just compensation” means payment equivalent to the fair market value of the property at the time of taking. RPVARA enforces this principle by defining fair valuation through a standardized, transparent system.

For lawyers, this law is particularly relevant in cases involving land acquisition, expropriation, estate settlement, and taxation. It is no longer enough to rely on outdated zonal values or arbitrarily assessed figures. The Constitution guarantees the right to just compensation, and RPVARA operationalizes this by requiring property valuations to reflect prevailing market values. Lawyers who fail to understand and assert the application of the PVS risk failing in their fiduciary duty to clients, particularly in expropriation cases where compensation is the core issue.

Judges and court-appointed commissioners are equally bound. In the past, some courts and referees have resorted to averaging methods or used outdated assessments in determining compensation. RPVARA now provides a clear and binding legal standard—market value as defined and measured by the Philippine Valuation Standards. Ignoring these standards may not only result in injustice but may also constitute a legal error that undermines the integrity of court decisions.

Local assessors and government appraisers face a professional turning point. RPVARA tasks the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) to adopt, maintain, and enforce the PVS, ensuring that local government units implement the new standards consistently. All valuation professionals in the public sector are now required by law to comply with these standards. Section 13 mandates that “all appraisers and assessors in LGUs, and other entities conducting valuation, shall conform with international valuation standards.” Section 14 further states that “all real properties shall be valued or appraised based on prevailing market values… in conformity with the PVS.”

These provisions echo the broader mandate of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which affirms the rule of law in all governmental actions. Likewise, Article XIII, Section 9, on urban land reform and housing, compels the State to respect the rights of small property owners—a promise that is only fulfilled when valuations are fair and legally grounded.

Non-compliance is not a mere technical oversight. RPVARA imposes administrative and even criminal liability on public officials or appraisers who deliberately disregard its mandates. This is reinforced by Sections 23 and 24 of the law, which provide for penalties in cases of violation. It also complements provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), such as Sections 201 and 212, which require local governments to prepare schedules of fair market values—now understood to mean values determined through PVS-compliant methods.

The significance of RPVARA extends beyond legal compliance. It helps create a transparent and reliable valuation system that supports fair taxation, equitable compensation, and investor confidence. For property owners, this means more credible valuations in expropriation, taxation, and real estate transactions. For local governments, it means a more reliable source of revenue, better planning, and improved public services.

This reform also aligns the Philippines with global best practices, supporting responsible urbanization and land use policy. A valuation system based on internationally aligned standards helps attract investment, reduce disputes, and enhance the efficiency of public infrastructure projects.

RPVARA is more than a technical law. It is a vital instrument for ensuring fairness in property-related processes, whether in taxation, compensation, or estate administration. Understanding this law—and putting it into practice—is not just the responsibility of appraisers or assessors. It is a shared duty of lawyers, judges, government officials, and landowners alike.

Now is the time to become familiar with the Philippine Valuation Standards. By doing so, we uphold constitutional rights, professional integrity, and the rule of law.

One Hat at a Time: Ethical and Legal Boundaries in Real Estate Practice

In Philippine real estate practice, a professional may wear multiple hats: appraiser, broker, consultant, or assessor. With these roles come distinct legal obligations and ethical expectations. Among the most critical distinctions is the contrast between the appraiser’s duty of independence and the broker’s duty of agency. Understanding this distinction—and reconciling it—is essential to preserving public trust and professional credibility in the real estate industry. This article explores how the ethical and legal foundations of real estate practice, as rooted in the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (R.A. 9646), guide practitioners in navigating these complex but complementary roles.

A real estate appraiser is a professional whose primary obligation is to render an independent, objective, and evidence-based opinion of value. The appraiser must act with impartiality, applying market data, sound valuation methodology, and professional judgment. The role demands a non-advocacy stance—the appraiser is not to promote the interests of any party, even the client. By contrast, a real estate broker functions under a legal agency relationship. As an agent, the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the client, which includes loyalty, obedience, diligence, full disclosure, confidentiality, and accountability. A broker is expected to promote and protect the client’s interests, even as they observe fairness and ethical conduct in dealings with others.

These differing roles raise a central ethical concern: how can a real estate professional reconcile the objectivity demanded of an appraiser and the loyalty expected of a broker, especially when licensed to perform both? The answer lies in the principle of professional role separation and ethical discipline. Each role must be exercised independently, with clear disclosure and without overlap that compromises impartiality or fiduciary duty. When acting as an appraiser, the practitioner must distance themselves from any client advocacy. When acting as a broker, they must zealously represent their client, but always within the bounds of the law and truthfulness. This ethical discipline—“wearing one hat at a time”—is crucial to maintaining credibility, avoiding conflict of interest, and upholding public trust.

First and foremost, the Real Estate Service Act of 2009 (R.A. 9646) formalizes the ethical obligations of appraisers, brokers, and other real estate professionals. Section 39 mandates that all practitioners be guided by a Code of Ethics and Responsibilities as adopted by the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service. This affirms the legal requirement to observe integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and public accountability in all aspects of professional practice. Violations of these ethical mandates can result in administrative sanctions such as license suspension or revocation, in addition to possible civil or criminal liability.

The ethical standards expected of real estate professionals are enshrined further in Philippine civil law. Chapter 2, Book I of the Civil Code, on Human Relations, provides the normative foundation for conduct in both personal and professional spheres. Article 19 mandates that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This provision is the cornerstone of professional ethics, requiring appraisers and brokers to act not merely within legal bounds, but with moral integrity, fairness, and honesty. Article 20 states that “every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.” A real estate professional may thus be held civilly liable for losses caused by misrepresentation, bias, or negligence, such as inflated valuations or failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, Article 21 provides that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” Even in the absence of a specific law or contract violation, acts against professional ethics or public trust may be actionable under this general clause on moral damages.

The Revised Penal Code supplements civil liabilities with criminal sanctions for unethical conduct that involves deceit, falsification, or breach of public trust. Article 171 on falsification of public documents and Article 172 on falsification by private individuals provide penalties for those who falsify data, signatures, or reports, particularly when such documents are submitted to government agencies for purposes such as taxation, loan application, or litigation. A real estate professional, acting dishonestly in the preparation or authentication of a report, may thus face criminal liability. Similarly, Articles 315 and 318, which address estafa and other deceits, penalize professionals who mislead clients or third parties for financial gain. This includes concealing defects, inflating values, or misrepresenting the true nature of a property transaction. These laws underscore that professional misconduct is not merely unethical—it can be criminal.

The real estate profession is grounded not only in technical competence but also in ethical clarity and legal responsibility. The roles of appraiser and broker may be different, but both demand honesty, fairness, and accountability. Whether providing an objective valuation or advocating for a client in a sale, the real estate professional must be guided by the legal duty to act with justice, good faith, and respect for others’ rights. Ultimately, the integrity of real estate transactions—and of the profession itself—depends on each practitioner’s ability to uphold their role with clear boundaries and an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct. In doing so, they not only comply with the law but also protect the public, the profession, and the value of their word.

Duterte’s Impeachment: A Closer Look at the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine political landscape has been abuzz with discussions about impeachment proceedings and the subsequent legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court. Among these cases is a petition for certiorari filed by the Vice President, seeking to halt or question the impeachment process arguing the one-year bar rule of the Philippine Constitution. The central question on many minds is: Will these cases prosper? To answer this, we must turn to the Philippine Constitution and the principles of separation of powers and judicial review.

The Constitutional Framework for Impeachment

The Philippine Constitution, in Article XI, Section 3, is clear: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” This provision establishes the Senate as the exclusive body responsible for conducting impeachment trials. Once the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment, the Senate takes over as the “court” that will hear the case and determine whether the impeached official should be removed from office.

This constitutional design reflects the principle of separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct roles. The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, while the Senate serves as the judge. The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is generally not involved in this process unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Why Is Impeachment in Article XI and Not in the Legislative Branch Provisions?

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) is a deliberate choice that reflects the unique nature and purpose of impeachment. There are various reasons such as the following:

Impeachment as a Check on Government Officials, Not a Legislative Function
Impeachment is not an ordinary legislative function. While it involves Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), its purpose is not to create laws or policies but to hold high-ranking government officials accountable for serious offenses such as graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, or other high crimes. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the framers emphasized that impeachment is primarily a mechanism for accountability, not a routine legislative duty.
Separation of Powers and the Unique Role of Congress in Impeachment
The Constitution divides the impeachment process between the two houses of Congress:
- The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, initiating the impeachment process by filing charges.
  - The Senate acts as the court, conducting the trial and deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeached official.
    This division of roles within Congress is unique and does not fit neatly into the general legislative functions outlined in Article VI. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution highlights that this process is a special power granted to Congress, distinct from its ordinary lawmaking responsibilities.
Impeachment as a Safeguard for Public Accountability
Article XI is titled “Accountability of Public Officers,” and its provisions focus on ensuring that public officials remain answerable to the people. Impeachment is one of the key mechanisms for enforcing this accountability, alongside other tools like the Ombudsman’s office and the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court). By situating impeachment in this article, the Constitution reinforces the idea that impeachment is not just a political process but a constitutional safeguard against abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
Avoiding Overlap with Ordinary Legislative Functions
If the impeachment provisions were placed in Article VI (Legislative Department), it might create confusion or conflate impeachment with ordinary legislative activities. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial process, not a lawmaking one. By separating it into Article XI, the Constitution clarifies that impeachment is a special process with its own rules and procedures, distinct from the day-to-day work of Congress.
Historical and Comparative Context
The placement of impeachment in a separate article is also consistent with the structure of other constitutions, such as the U.S. Constitution, which similarly places impeachment provisions in a distinct section (Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 2 and 3). This reflects a broader constitutional tradition that treats impeachment as a unique and critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity of government.
Emphasizing the Gravity of Impeachment
By isolating impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution underscores the gravity and solemnity of the process. Impeachment is not a routine political tool but a last resort for addressing serious misconduct by high-ranking officials. Its placement in a dedicated article highlights its importance as a constitutional remedy for preserving democracy and the rule of law.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the Philippines, has the power of judicial review. This means it can determine whether the actions of other government branches are consistent with the Constitution. However, this power is not unlimited. The Court has consistently held that it will not interfere in political questions—matters that the Constitution has assigned to other branches of government.

In the context of impeachment, the Supreme Court’s role is limited. It can only intervene if there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Grave abuse of discretion refers to actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Constitution. Absent such abuse, the Supreme Court will defer to the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Sara Duterte’s Petition: Why It Will Not Prosper

Earlier today, a petition filed by the Vice President argued that the impeachment violated the one-year bar rule stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. However, the petition is unlikely to succeed based on established legal principles.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), clarified that impeachment proceedings are initiated when an impeachment complaint is both filed AND referred to the House Committee on Justice.

This means that once an impeachment complaint has been formally referred to the committee, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against the same official within one year.

Also, in their brief (page 17) it is stated that the initiation of impeachment occurs through both the filing AND the referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice.

Since the One-Year Bar Rule on Impeachment was not violated, her petition lacks merit. If the first impeachment complaint was filed but not referred or endorsed, it does not constitute an initiated impeachment proceeding. Without a violation of the one-year rule, there is no constitutional basis to challenge the subsequent impeachment complaint.

The Cases Filed in the Supreme Court

Several cases have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the impeachment process, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to challenge the actions of a government body, arguing that it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

In these cases, the petitioners are likely arguing that the House of Representatives or the Senate violated constitutional procedures or acted unfairly in initiating or conducting the impeachment process. However, for these cases to succeed, the petitioners must prove that there was indeed grave abuse of discretion.

Will These Cases Prosper?

Based on the constitutional framework, the answer is likely no. My answer is premised in the following:

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Senate: The Constitution explicitly grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. This means that, as long as the Senate is acting within its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Unless the petitioners can demonstrate that the House of Representatives or the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will likely dismiss the cases. The Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in impeachment proceedings, respecting the separation of powers.
Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court generally practices judicial restraint in political matters, especially when the Constitution has clearly assigned a specific role to another branch of government. Impeachment is a political process, and the Court is unlikely to overstep its bounds unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

The cases filed in the Supreme Court, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari, face an uphill battle. The Philippine Constitution clearly vests the Senate with the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. Barring such evidence, the Senate’s jurisdiction over the impeachment process will remain unchallenged, and the cases in the Supreme Court are unlikely to prosper.

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) reflects the framers’ intent to emphasize that impeachment is a special constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability, not an ordinary legislative function. This arrangement reinforces the separation of powers, clarifies the unique roles of the House and Senate in the process, and highlights the gravity of impeachment as a safeguard against abuse of power by public officials. It is a deliberate choice that aligns with the broader principles of constitutional governance and public accountability.

As the impeachment proceedings unfold, the nation will be watching closely, not only to see how the political drama plays out but also to witness the resilience of the constitutional principles that underpin Philippine democracy.