Case Digest: Rep. Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (Former Fourth Division), Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon, Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas, Sheree M. Nolasco, Marie A. Balangue, Nonnette C. Bennett, Dr. Teresita F. De Venecia, Antonio J. Supremido, Jr., and Pastor Gener Tandoc G.R. No. 221823, June 21, 2022 Supreme Court, En Banc Ponente: Justice Ricardo R. Rosario

 

FACTS

The case arose from a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and Writ of Continuing Mandamus filed by several residents and environmental advocates seeking the protection and rehabilitation of the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve in Tuba, Benguet. They alleged that extensive environmental degradation was occurring within the forest reserve due to illegal tree-cutting, road construction, earth-moving activities, illegal mining, and the expansion of vegetable gardens and residential areas. These activities allegedly caused severe soil erosion, contamination of water sources, and siltation of the Amliang Dams and the Bued River, which serve as major water sources in Benguet.

Representative Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr. was specifically identified as having undertaken road-opening and earth-moving activities within the forest reserve. The petitioners alleged that these activities caused extensive destruction of forest lands and aggravated erosion. Consequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and, after hearing the case, granted the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus. The CA permanently enjoined Aliping from further developing the property he claimed within the forest reserve, ordered him to rehabilitate the damaged areas through massive tree planting, and directed several government agencies and the Municipality of Tuba to undertake measures to protect and restore the forest reserve.

Aliping elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. He argued that the CA violated his constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws because the injunction was directed only against him despite the existence of other occupants, vegetable growers, and settlers who were likewise contributing to the degradation of the forest reserve. He maintained that singling him out for the injunction constituted discriminatory treatment.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals violated petitioner's constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws by permanently enjoining only him from conducting development activities within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve.

Whether or not the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus, including the directives requiring petitioner to cease his activities and rehabilitate the affected areas, was legally justified under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

Whether or not the evidence sufficiently established petitioner's responsibility for environmental damage within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve, thereby justifying the specific reliefs imposed against him.

HELD

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals' Decision. The Court ruled that the CA did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It explained that while the injunction specifically named petitioner, there was no showing of intentional or purposeful discrimination, which is an indispensable element of an equal protection claim. The mere fact that other persons who may have committed similar violations were not included in the case does not render the order unconstitutional. The prosecution or enforcement of the law against one violator does not, by itself, amount to a denial of equal protection absent proof that the action was motivated by an unjustifiable or discriminatory purpose.

The Court further held that the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan and the Writ of Continuing Mandamus was proper under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The evidence established that petitioner's road construction and earth-moving activities significantly contributed to soil erosion and environmental degradation within the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve, a protected forest reserve created under Proclamation No. 581. The Court emphasized that environmental protection is a constitutional duty, and courts may issue preventive and restorative remedies to safeguard ecological rights when environmental damage of such magnitude is shown.

The Court also relied on the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines), particularly those prohibiting the unlawful occupation, destruction, and exploitation of forest lands without proper authority. It stressed that forest reserves are part of the public domain and are subject to the State's constitutional duty under Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution to protect and advance the people's right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Because petitioner's activities contributed to the degradation of the forest reserve, the directives ordering him to cease further development and rehabilitate the affected areas were sustained as valid exercises of judicial authority under environmental laws.