Environmental Rights Are Human Rights: Why Cebu Must Defend Its Constitutional Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY MESSAGE

Today, the world commemorates International Human Rights Day, marking the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But in Cebu, this day carries a deeper, more urgent meaning. In our island—where critical watersheds are shrinking, fragile slopes are carved for profit, rivers are choked with silt, and communities drown in entirely preventable floods—one fundamental human right is under unprecedented threat:

The Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology.

This is not a political slogan or an aspirational ideal. It is a constitutional mandate, enshrined in Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”

This right is further affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran (1993), which established that environmental rights are intergenerational, enforceable in court, and impose a mandatory duty on all government officials to protect the environment for present and future generations.

I. Environmental Neglect is a Human Rights Violation

Human Rights are not solely civil and political; they are inextricably environmental, social, and economic.

Cebuanos cannot fully enjoy their right to life, security, livelihood, or safe housing if their communities are systematically placed in harm’s way by governance failures, including:

Scientifically unsound land-use decisions.
Approval of upland developments in known hazard-prone areas.
Zoning ordinances that ignore hydrological and watershed limits.
Failure to integrate mandatory hazard maps and natural capital accounting.
Non-compliance with national laws such as RA 11995 (PENCAS) and RA 11038 (E-NIPAS).

When a city tolerates policies that exacerbate climate risks and disaster intensity, the resulting flooding and landslides cease to be “natural disasters.” They become human rights violations caused by official negligence, abuse of authority, and systemic disregard for public safety.

The government, by transferring disaster risk from developers and decision-makers onto the most vulnerable communities, violates the people’s constitutional right to: Health, Security, Safety, Due Process, Life, and Environmental Equity.

II. The Human Cost of Environmental Injustice in Cebu

Recent disasters, such as the flash floods caused by Typhoon Tino and similar weather events, tragically revealed the truth Cebuanos have felt for years: Catastrophic flooding is not inevitable. It is the direct consequence of human decisions—of upland reclassification, politically influenced zoning, weak enforcement, and the dangerous disregard for the island’s carrying capacity.

In areas like Bacayan, Mananga, Compostela, and Subangdaku, lives have been lost, homes destroyed, and families displaced. These are not isolated tragedies. They are symptoms of a profound governance failure, violating both the tenets of environmental protection and the principles of social justice.

III. Accountability Mandated by Law: The PENCAS Defect

The law requires more from our leaders, particularly following the enactment of the Philippine Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounting System Act (RA 11995).

PENCAS, effective in May 2024, made it mandatory for all government units to:

Integrate natural capital valuation in all planning.
Consider ecological thresholds before approving developments.
Quantify environmental losses and risks to protect critical ecosystems.

However, the recently approved Cebu City CLUP and Zoning Ordinance 2025—passed after PENCAS took effect—demonstrates an alarming failure to integrate these mandatory principles.

This is not only a profound legal defect but, more importantly, a human rights crisis. When planning willfully ignores ecological science and mandatory laws, the people ultimately pay the price with their lives, homes, and livelihoods.

IV. Environmental Justice is Human Rights Justice

The Constitution demands “harmony with nature.” Conversely, our current planning trajectory is in direct conflict with nature.

Scientific data consistently shows that the uplands contribute 55–60% of Cebu’s floodwater runoff. Yet, land-use decisions continue to open these crucial slopes and midlands to:

Excessive reclassification and rezoning.
Expansive subdivisions and commercial sprawl.
Aggressive road cuts and quarrying.

This pattern is not development; it is risk accumulation. Every time a watershed is weakened, a slope is destabilized, or a flood basin is paved over, we fundamentally undermine the people’s rights to safety and a sustainable future.

Environmental Justice demands that:

Those who benefit from development must not be allowed to inflict harm on those downstream.
Government decisions must be based on science and must not endanger the public they swore to protect.
Vulnerable communities must not be sacrificed for private gain and political expediency.

V. A Call for Action and Accountability

On this International Human Rights Day, we stand together to assert that:

Flood safety is a Human Right.
Compliance with environmental law (RA 11995) is a mandatory duty.
Hazard-informed planning is a legal requirement.
No zoning ordinance should contradict science, and no public official has the authority to gamble with ecological security.

We assert our right to demand accountability, transparency, correction of defective plans, and the unwavering protection of our uplands and watersheds.

We look forward to A Cebu That Honors Human Rights: a city built on the right to safe communities, flood resilience, and ecological integrity.

Environmental Rights ARE Human Rights. Justice for Cebu.

LEGALESE

Why the CLUP Cannot Be Overridden by a Simple Ordinance

In conversations about Cebu City’s development, one dangerous misconception keeps circulating:

“The CLUP is just a tool. The City Council can always pass a new ordinance to change it.”

This idea is not only false —
it is illegal, misleading, and destructive to long-term planning.

The CLUP is not a casual instrument.
It is the foundation of the city’s entire land-use system, backed by national law, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and technical standards.

This explainer breaks down, in clear language, why the CLUP cannot be casually altered, and why it must remain the city’s controlling land-use document.

1. The CLUP Is a Legal Mandate — Not an Optional Planning Tool

The Local Government Code (RA 7160) is explicit:

“Local government units SHALL prepare their comprehensive land use plans…
which SHALL be the PRIMARY and DOMINANT bases for land use.”
(Sec. 20, RA 7160)

Let’s unpack this:

✔ “SHALL” — means mandatory, not optional

✔ “PRIMARY and DOMINANT” — means superior to all land-use ordinances

✔ “Bases for land use” — means all zoning and land decisions MUST follow it

The CLUP is NOT:

a guideline
an advisory document
a flexible policy tool

It is a statutory requirement and it shapes every land-use decision the city makes.

2. The CLUP Is Approved by National Agencies — So a Simple Ordinance Cannot Override It

Under Executive Order 72 and DHSUD/HLURB Rules, the CLUP must pass through:

Technical planning
Public consultations
CPDO review
City Council adoption
Regional Land Use Committee (RLUC) approval
NEDA oversight

This makes the CLUP part of the national planning system.

A regular ordinance:

does not undergo national review
does not pass through RLUC
does not require technical studies
is not evaluated for hazards, transport, drainage, or environmental impact

Therefore:

A local ordinance cannot overrule a document that required multi-level approval.

The CLUP is a nationally aligned, technically vetted plan.
A zoning amendment is not.

3. The Zoning Ordinance (ZO) Is Only Valid if It Conforms to the CLUP

This is often misunderstood.

The Zoning Ordinance is the implementing arm of the CLUP.
It cannot contradict the CLUP — it must FOLLOW it.

The Supreme Court has said this in black-and-white:

A. Rizal v. Mandaluyong (2005)

Zoning must conform to the CLUP; otherwise, the ordinance is invalid.

B. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s (2008)

Any deviation from the CLUP requires a CLUP amendment FIRST.

C. Hacienda Luisita v. DAR (2011)

Land-use changes must be consistent with the approved CLUP.

These rulings make one thing clear:

A zoning ordinance that contradicts the CLUP is illegal and void.

So the common LGU practice of “rezoning by ordinance” without CLUP amendment is contrary to law.

4. The CLUP Protects Cebuanos Against Dangerous, Arbitrary, or Politically Driven Land-Use Changes

This is the purpose of having a legally binding CLUP.

Without a strong CLUP:

developers can lobby for spot zoning
upland areas can be converted illegally
floodplains can be reclassified as commercial
hazard zones can be opened for construction
transport systems lose their logic
water supply planning collapses
disaster risk increases
the environment becomes negotiable

The CLUP ensures decisions are based on:

science
terrain
hazard maps
environmental limits
water capacity
transport systems
long-term growth

—not political influence.

A casual ordinance bypasses all of these safeguards.

5. Changing the CLUP Requires a Full, Regulated Amendment Process — Not a Shortcut

Can the CLUP be amended?
YES — but only through a formal, technical process, not by a simple ordinance.

CLUP amendments require:

updated technical studies
barangay consultations
environmental and hazard assessments
CPDO evaluation
Sanggunian approval
DHSUD regional approval
RLUC/NEDA conformity

That takes months, sometimes years.

A zoning ordinance alone takes a few weeks —
which is why some LGUs prefer shortcuts.

But these shortcuts are illegal and expose the city to legal, environmental, and governance risks.

6. The CLUP Has Constitutional Weight

The 1987 Constitution guarantees:

“The right to a balanced and healthful ecology.”
(Art II Sec 16)

Land use planning is one of the main instruments used by LGUs to fulfill this constitutional mandate.

If officials bypass, ignore, or override the CLUP, they violate:

Constitutional policy
Environmental safety
National planning standards
Due process
Risk reduction principles

This is why the CLUP is not a tool —
it is a constitutional obligation.

7. What Happens If Cebu Treats the CLUP as “Just a Tool”?

The consequences are immediate and severe:

✔ legally void zoning ordinances

✔ invalid permits

✔ increased liability for LGU officials

✔ misaligned infrastructure

✔ worsening flooding

✔ unregulated upland development

✔ breakdown of transport logic

✔ worsening housing crisis

✔ environmental degradation

✔ higher disaster risk

Cebu City cannot afford these outcomes —
not with its limited land, growing population, and worsening climate hazards.

The CLUP Is the City’s Land-Use Constitution

It is:

mandated by national law
affirmed by the Supreme Court
integrated with national planning bodies
approved through RLUC
the basis of zoning
the backbone of environmental protection
the anchor of water, transport, and infrastructure planning
the legal safeguard against arbitrary land-use decisions

When officials say:

“We can override the CLUP with a new ordinance,”

they are misunderstanding —
or ignoring —
the entire Philippine land-use legal system.

Cebu deserves better.
Cebu deserves planning grounded in law, science, and long-term vision —
not shortcuts.

CLUP/ZO SERIES – PART 1

Why Cebu City’s Housing Plan Cannot Work: A Critical Look at the CLUP’s Most Serious Weakness

This article begins my multi-part series on Cebu City’s new Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Zoning Ordinance (ZO).
Over the next few weeks, we will look closely at what this plan gets right, what it gets wrong, and how its flaws shape Cebu’s future — for better or for worse.

We begin with the sector that affects all others: HOUSING.

Because where people live determines how they move, how they work, how communities grow, and ultimately whether a city becomes livable — or collapses under its own weight.

And right now, Cebu City’s housing plan is on the wrong path.

The Huge Gap Between Housing Needs and Housing Reality

The City estimates that 865,725 housing units are needed to address the backlog and future demand.
To accommodate that number, the CLUP calculates that Cebu City would need 15,169 hectares of additional residential land.

But here is the problem:

Cebu City does not have 15,169 hectares of buildable land.

It doesn’t even come close.

Cebu is not a flat province like Cavite or Laguna.
It is a mountain city with narrow slopes, rivers, steep terrain, coastal hazards, and protected watersheds.

Only about 25–30% of Cebu’s total land is actually suitable for safe residential development.

In other words:

The very formula used to compute Cebu’s housing demand does not fit Cebu’s geography.

It’s like measuring a mountain with a ruler designed for plains.

And because the method is wrong, the strategies that follow also fall apart.

So Where Will Cebu Build? The CLUP’s Answer: SRP

Because Cebu lacks large, flat, safe tracts of land, the CLUP turns almost entirely to the South Road Properties (SRP) — a reclaimed area exposed to storm surge, subsidence, and liquefaction — as the primary relocation site for the urban poor.

The City actually owns 313 hectares of land across 211 parcels.
But a massive 240 hectares (76%) of this land is in SRP.

This explains the CLUP’s insistence on building:

Temporary housing in SRP
Permanent high-rise housing in SRP
Social housing clusters in SRP

SRP is the easiest to access politically.
But it is also one of the most dangerous places to house the poor.

Relocating families from riverbanks and hazard zones only to place them in a coastal hazard zone is not progress — it is risk transfer.

It moves people out of danger… and into another kind of danger.

The “Permanent Housing” Plan Is Even Harder to Believe

The CLUP describes an ambitious “South Coastal Urban Development” (SCUD) project:

5-storey, 10-storey, and 20-storey MRBs
Long-term leases “like Singapore”
Thousands of families relocated to high-density towers

But the proposed site is still underwater.
The land does not exist yet — it must be reclaimed first.

Even if the concept is good, the location and timing are not.

It will take years before the land is ready.
And billions upon billions before the buildings rise.

Which brings us to another uncomfortable truth.

The CLUP Claims ₱26 Billion Per Year for Housing — Cebu’s Budget Is Only ₱13 Billion

The CLUP states that the City is allocating ₱26 billion annually for MRB construction.

But Cebu City’s entire 2026 budget is only ₱13 billion.

Meaning:

The housing plan requires twice the city’s entire budget
No one knows where the money will come from
No financing model, PPP structure, or national commitment is presented

It is a beautiful idea with no financial backbone.

Housing towers may be drawn on paper,
but they cannot be built with numbers that do not exist.

So Why Not Use the City’s Other Land?

Outside SRP, the City owns:

66.37 hectares

Used for schools, barangay halls, and urban poor housing.

These areas could be transformed into strategic mid-rise communities connected to jobs and transport.
But the CLUP does not propose land consolidation, urban regeneration, or vertical redevelopment.

6.79 hectares

Remain idle — mostly upland, steep, or constrained.

These lands are unsuitable for housing and should remain ecological buffers.

The Housing Plan Is Isolated — Not Integrated With Transport, Jobs, Commerce, or Water

Housing is not a standalone sector.
It must align with:

transportation systems
BRT corridors
commercial centers
industrial zones
water supply
hazard maps
drainage systems

But Cebu’s housing plan exists in a silo.

It does not place housing near jobs.

It does not place housing near BRT stations.

It does not expand residential areas near commercial centers.

It does not address water scarcity for 865,000 new units.

It does not protect uplands from overdevelopment.

It does not calculate relocation impacts on transport or flooding.

It treats housing as if it floats above the city, unaffected by everything else.

That is not how cities work.

What We Are Left With Is a Housing Plan That Cannot Succeed

❌ The method is wrong for Cebu’s geography

❌ The land available does not match the land required

❌ The largest landholding (SRP) is hazard-prone

❌ The permanent housing site is underwater

❌ The budget is twice the city’s capability

❌ The plan does not integrate with transport, jobs, or water

❌ The uplands cannot support more sprawl

❌ The poor are relocated to isolation

This is not simply an imperfect plan.
It is a plan built on structural contradictions.

Cebu needs a housing strategy grounded in:

vertical development
transit-oriented planning
safe, accessible locations
integrated public land redevelopment
financial realism
environmental science
climate resilience

The CLUP does not offer that.

Not yet.

What Comes Next in This Series

In the next articles, we’ll dive into:

Part 2 — Transport & Mobility: Where the CLUP Went Wrong

Why the BRT is disconnected from land use, and how transport planning became an afterthought.

Part 3 — Commercial & Industrial Zones: Misalignment and Missed Opportunities

A look at the political economy of zoning.

Part 4 — Environment, Flooding & Watersheds: The Consequences of Poor Planning

How upland mismanagement worsens lowland floods.

Part 5 — Governance, Variances & Loopholes: How the Zoning Board Can Override Everything

The silent powers shaping Cebu’s future.

This is the beginning of a deeper conversation —
one Cebu desperately needs.

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.

Why Cebu Must Value Both Use and Non-Use Benefits of Its Uplands

Public discussions on Cebu’s upland resources often rely on a narrow and misleading definition of “economic value.” For years, local discourse has focused on equating economic worth with the revenues earned from quarrying and extraction. This creates the persistent and dangerous misnomer that natural wealth is measured solely by use value.

This belief is repeated in public forums, policy pronouncements, and fiscal reports. It suggests that whatever Cebu can extract, haul, crush, or sell represents the true economic contribution of its uplands. In reality, economics does not define wealth this way. Modern environmental economics evaluates natural systems differently. True economic valuation includes use values. It also includes non-use values. Ignoring non-use values results in incomplete analysis. This leads to flawed public policy. It causes environmental decline. It exacerbates climate vulnerability.

Before addressing this conceptual flaw, the scale of Cebu’s mineral economy must be clearly understood. The province is not operating a ₱600-million quarrying industry, as public officials often portray. It is operating a ₱20-billion extraction economy per year. When metallic and non-metallic activities are combined, the actual size of Cebu’s mineral economy becomes undeniable: ₱20.18 billion in 2024, ₱21.53 billion in 2023, and ₱19.32 billion in 2022. This is the real magnitude of extraction occurring in the uplands—far larger than what provincial income statements suggest.

Cebu’s quarry operators, processors, haulers, and construction supply chains transact between ₱7.5–₱12.5 billion annually in non-metallic sales alone, while metallic operations consistently exceed ₱18 billion per year. By contrast, government revenue—₱628 million in 2023—represents only 2–4% of Cebu’s total mineral economy. Thus, a massive private extraction economy generates billions in sales and profit. Meanwhile, public income is thin. It is too small to offset the environmental and social costs borne by the public.

This fixation on quarry revenue—and even the broader ₱20-billion extraction economy—reveals the deeper misconception underpinning current policies. It is the assumption that the value of natural resources lies primarily in what can be extracted from them.

This is not how economics works. Modern environmental economics, natural resource theory, and the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework all provide important lessons. They teach that real economic worth consists of use values and non-use values. Use values include quarrying, water extraction, timber, and agriculture. Recreation and tourism are also included. These activities are easily monetized and prominently appear in financial statements. Yet these represent only a fraction of total wealth.

Non-use values, although invisible in budgets and COA reports, are economically real. They represent the benefit of simply knowing that forests and watersheds exist (existence value). They also include the value of leaving ecosystems intact for future generations (bequest value). Non-use values cover the value of keeping nature available for future or unknown uses (option value). They encompass the value derived from knowing that other communities benefit from intact uplands (altruistic value). These are precisely the values Cebu loses. This happens the moment a mountain is cut, a slope is excavated, or a watershed is bulldozed.

The consequences of ignoring non-use values are visible today in the worsening flooding across Metro Cebu. Cebu’s intense focus on use values and extraction leads to destruction. This destruction affects the non-use values that sustain long-term stability. When uplands are stripped, infiltration declines; runoff accelerates; sedimentation increases; river capacity shrinks; and flood peaks intensify. This is why Metro Cebu now floods even without typhoons and why ordinary rainfall brings cities to a halt. Every ton of aggregates removed from Cebu’s uplands reduces the natural economy. This reduction affects flood mitigation, slope stability, groundwater recharge, biodiversity, and climate regulation.

In short, this is the heart of Cebu’s political economy of flooding:

A ₱20-billion extraction economy drives upland degradation.
A ₱600-million public revenue creates the illusion of fiscal benefit.
A multi-billion-peso ecological loss is imposed on the public.
A non-functioning natural protection system results in chronic flooding.

Short-term extraction is displacing long-term security.

These losses constitute ecological depreciation—the downward adjustment of natural capital from human activity. Government does not record this depreciation. However, households and businesses pay for it. They endure flooded homes. Business districts are paralyzed, and infrastructure is damaged. Transportation is disrupted. There are lost workdays, medical incidents, and increased LGU emergency spending. Against these losses, quarry revenues are negligible.

The core economic argument is simple: Cebu is counting the small gains and ignoring the massive losses. The province records quarry taxes, permit fees, operator sales, and extraction-based employment. However, it does not account for the loss of watershed integrity, slope stability, and infiltration capacity. It also overlooks groundwater reserves, biodiversity, and climate resilience. Social cohesion, cultural heritage, and intergenerational equity are ignored too. This is not just incomplete economics—it is incorrect economics. One cannot claim economic benefit from quarrying while ignoring the far greater economic harm caused by upland degradation. A ₱20-billion extraction economy is running alongside a collapsing natural economy. The outcome is predictable. The province gains short-term financial flows but accumulates long-term environmental debt.

This dynamic lies at the heart of Cebu’s political economy of flooding. A ₱20-billion extraction economy continues to drive upland degradation. A ₱600-million public revenue stream creates the illusion of fiscal benefit. A multi-billion-peso ecological loss is imposed on the public. And a weakened, fragmented natural protection system results in chronic flooding across urban and peri-urban areas. Short-term extraction has displaced long-term security, and the costs are borne disproportionately by downstream communities—not the operators who profit upstream.

Moving forward, Cebu can no longer afford a development model that counts quarry revenue but ignores watershed collapse. The province must make rational, future-oriented decisions. To do so, it must abandon the misnomer that use value alone defines economic wealth. The real economy of Cebu’s uplands includes their role as natural flood buffers. These uplands function as water towers and contribute to climate regulation. They have cultural and identity significance. Their value is also crucial to future generations. Cebu cannot call itself progressive if it treats natural capital as expendable. It cannot claim resilience if it undermines the uplands that protect the lowlands.

Economics is not about extraction. It is the total value—use and non-use, present and future, private gain and public cost. Until Cebu adopts this full accounting, it will continue to profit in pesos. However, it will lose wealth in floods, landslides, and ecological decline.

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.

⚖️ Legal Brief in Real Estate

By: AB Agosto, JD

When an earthquake caused the collapse of the Ruby Tower in Manila in 1968, the tragedy raised a profound legal question: could the contractors, architects, and engineers be held liable for damages, or was the destruction purely an act of God? This question was resolved in Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986), a case that remains a cornerstone of Philippine jurisprudence on real estate liability.

The petitioners argued that the earthquake was a fortuitous event, beyond human control, and that under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, they should be exempt from liability. The Court, however, examined the evidence and concluded that negligence in design and construction had contributed to the building’s collapse. The ruling made it clear: a fortuitous event does not excuse liability when human negligence concurs in producing the damage.

The Court declared, “The principle of fortuitous event cannot apply where the negligence of the obligor concurs with the fortuitous event in producing the damage. Negligence is not excused by fortuitous event.” In other words, while the earthquake was indeed an act of nature, the faulty workmanship and design defects were man-made, and together they caused the catastrophic failure.

This case remains directly relevant to real estate practice because it clarifies how responsibility is allocated when property is damaged by natural disasters. For builders and developers, Nakpil is a stern warning. It shows that compliance with the Building Code, zoning ordinances, and engineering standards is not optional but a legal duty. An earthquake may be unavoidable, but if poor materials, inadequate structural design, or shortcuts in construction contribute to the collapse, liability attaches. Developers cannot simply invoke force majeure; their reputation, financial exposure, and even criminal liability may be at stake.

For appraisers, the ruling highlights a subtle but crucial point. When valuing damaged property, it is necessary to ask: Was the loss caused solely by the disaster, or was it aggravated by negligence? If the latter, the cost to cure or diminution in value may be subject to claims against contractors, engineers, or insurers. This affects appraisal reports for insurance claims, litigation support, and even expropriation where consequential damages are assessed.

For insurers, Nakpil clarifies the boundaries of coverage. Many property policies exclude “acts of God” like earthquakes, but this case shows that where negligence coexists with a natural event, liability persists. Thus, insurers must carefully examine claims to determine if negligence by contractors or owners triggered coverage. It also guides insurers in drafting clearer clauses about fortuitous events, exclusions, and subrogation rights.

For property owners, the case is a lesson in vigilance and due diligence. Choosing competent contractors, hiring licensed engineers and architects, and ensuring that designs comply with earthquake-resistant standards are not just business decisions but safeguards against loss. Owners cannot assume that “insurance will pay” or that “the disaster was unavoidable.” The law demands that owners protect their property with foresight.

For the broader real estate industry, Nakpil underscores the link between law, valuation, and social responsibility. The safety and integrity of buildings directly affect communities, not just investors. When negligence meets disaster, lives and livelihoods are lost. By holding professionals accountable, the Supreme Court reinforced a culture of responsibility — one that appraisers, brokers, assessors, and developers must uphold in a disaster-prone country like the Philippines.

The continuing lesson of Nakpil is accountability- natural events may be unavoidable, but their impact is often determined by human foresight, planning, and diligence. In a country as disaster-prone as the Philippines, this doctrine safeguards the public by ensuring that responsibility cannot be avoided under the blanket excuse of force majeure.

Doctrine: Nakpil ensures that earthquakes and other disasters do not excuse negligence. Builders must build right, appraisers must distinguish causes of damage, insurers must test the limits of coverage, and property owners must demand quality. In real estate, accountability and preparedness remain the first defenses against natural calamities.

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.