Facts:

The case pertains to Rep. Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr. (petitioner) versus a group of respondents including Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon and others. It centers around the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve in Tuba, Benguet, which was established by Proclamation No. 581 on July 8, 1940. This reserve spans about 3,114 hectares, serving both ecological protection and as a vital water source. Nestled within are essential water springs that support not just the local populace of Benguet but also communities in Baguio City and Pangasinan.

In April 2014, a group of mountain trekkers alerted the local government regarding illegal tree-cutting and excavation activities led by the petitioner at Mount Santo Tomas. Investigations revealed that unauthorized road constructions were taking place, resulting in the cutting of 306 trees and several saplings, contributing to significant environmental degradation. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) filed a complaint against the petitio

...

Facts:

Creation and Significance of the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve

• On July 8, 1940, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Proclamation No. 581 creating the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve in Tuba, Benguet.
• The reserve, covering approximately 3,114 hectares of mountains and forest lands, was established for forest protection, timber production, and aesthetic purposes.
• It comprises ecologically and hydrologically significant areas including two of Benguet’s highest peaks—Mount Santo Tomas and Mount Cabuyao—and natural springs that serve as the headwaters for critical water resources.
• These springs sustain three reservoir dams of the Baguio Water District (BWD) and supply water not only to residents of Tuba and Baguio City but also to inhabitants of Pangasinan via the Bued River and the San Fabian River Irrigation System.

Discovery and Investigation of Illegal Activities

• On April 15, 2014, mountain trekkers reported tree-cutting and excavation activities occurring at Mount Santo Tomas.
• The report was forwarded by Benguet Governor Nestor B. Fongwan to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – Cordillera Administrative Region, which in turn relayed it to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of La Trinidad.
• CENRO organized a team that conducted an ocular inspection on April 25, 2014, with follow-up investigations on May 23 and May 27, 2014.

Evidence of Damaging Activities within the Reserve

• The investigation revealed that:
• Two new roads were being constructed in Barangay Poblacion, Tuba, one extending 1.5 km from Sitio Amliang to Sitio Pongayan and another covering 1.14 km from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Bekel.
• These road construction projects, located within the forest reserve, were undertaken without securing the required Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), Tree Cutting Permit/Special Land Use Permit, or Road Right-of-Way/Excavation Permit.
• An estimated 306 trees and 455 saplings were cut, and heavy earth-moving operations led to significant soil erosion affecting water bodies (notably siltation at Amliang Dam 3).
• Petitioner Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr., a member of Congress for the lone legislative district of Baguio City, was tagged by the CENRO as responsible for the alleged earth-moving activities.
• Further discovery indicated that the offending roads originated from a piece of land within the forest reserve that petitioner claimed, which intensified the legal and environmental scrutiny.

Legal and Administrative Actions

• The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) filed a criminal complaint against petitioner and construction companies for violations of Sections 77 and 78 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code).
• The EMB issued a Notice of Violation cum Cease and Desist Order and, after a technical conference, imposed a penalty of P50,000.00 against petitioner for conducting excavation without the necessary permits.
• The BWD, following an inspection on April 28, 2014, attributed deteriorating water quality at Amliang Dam 3 to the excess excavation activities and the dumping of excavated debris.

Filing of the Kalikasan Petition and CA Proceedings

• Respondents—Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon, Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, among others—filed a Kalikasan petition for a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus.
• The petition asserted that illegal tree-cutting, massive earth-moving, unauthorized small-scale mining, and improper issuance of tax declarations were degrading the forest reserve’s natural springs, thereby violating the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
• The petition sought remedial measures against petitioner, local government officials, and DENR personnel to halt destructive activities and enforce environmental protection orders.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision on May 6, 2015, granting the requested writs and issuing a permanent Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) with several specific directives directed primarily at petitioner and other implicated government entities.
• In his return submitted on October 13, 2014, petitioner admitted to excavation activities on his claim but denied involvement in constructing new roads or cutting trees outside his property.
• Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging item 4 of the CA’s dispositive directive, arguing that it violated his rights to equal protection and due process.

Issue:

Constitutional and Due Process Concerns

• Whether the CA’s directive, particularly item 4(a) which restrains petitioner from enhancing or developing his claimed property in the forest reserve, violates his right to equal protection under the law.
• Whether the directive infringes on petitioner’s due process rights by limiting his property use based on allegations not similarly imposed on other residents.

Factual and Evidentiary Basis for the Imposed Environmental Remedial Measures

• Whether the evidence presented conclusively supports that petitioner was engaged in illegal tree-cutting and earth-moving activities that contributed to environmental degradation.
• Whether the imposition of specific remedial measures (including ceasing further development, mitigating soil erosion, and rehabilitating damaged areas) is justified by the established facts.

Balancing Environmental Protection Against Individual Property Rights

• Whether differential treatment—applying stringent measures solely against petitioner—is warranted given his alleged exclusive conduct and the broader objective of conserving critical environmental resources.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)