In 2014, led by the Movement for Livable Cebu, concerned citizens and other supporters successfully halted cutting of trees from Naga to Carcar with suggestions and agreements regarding alternatives to tree cutting as well as alternative transport routes, among others, amicably discussed and accepted.
That was a beautiful show of unity and commitment to protect both trees and people then.
Fast forward September 2019. Trees were cut and more scheduled to be cut this October 15th. The same reasons expressed by local government units and agency officials in 2014 are repeated: trees have to be cut for road widening and because they pose threats to commuters.
Same issue from protesters of tree cutting: can we not spare the trees by carefully studying alternative routes for more efficient transport system from Naga to Carcar? What happened to the 2014 alternatives and recommendations?
Cannot all the stakeholders once again find win-win solutions where wider roads can be built and trees can be maintained?
As Atty. Liza Osorio wrote: ”Trees are important to all of us. Without trees, we cannot have clean air to breathe. With the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) building up in our atmosphere contributing to climate change, trees absorb CO2 and improve air quality in our communities.”
Surely, there are other routes that can be considered to support the sustainable road and transport development from Naga to Carcar. Why rush through only one set of plans and have these presented to the public for their review and acceptance?
Oh, more seriously, according to the road widening and tree cutting proponents, this 2014 recycled alarmist reason: commuters have to be protected from being hurt by damaged trees.
Was the CENRO Argao October 15 tree cutting permit based on reliable, longitudinal data and proof of tree-related accidents and injuries to commuters from before and after 2014? Does CENRO Argao and the tree-cutting proponents have solid evidence based on serious assessment of tree pathologists that the 32 trees to be cut are completely damaged, useless, and harmful to people?
Atty. Ben Cabrido wrote when he filed the Writ of Kalikasan vs. DENR & DPWH, C.A. G.R. No. 13187: “All that I asked in the petition is for every roadside tree to be accorded due process before being condemned by man.”
Atty. Cabrido explained that “the legal battle is on to protect roadside trees nationwide because: 1) Roadside trees are a special class of trees protected by a 50-year old statute; 2) his main cause of action in the writ of kalikasan he filed for roadside tree protection is the non-observance by DENR and DPWH of the protocol outlined in R.A. 3571; 3) DENR Administrative Order 2018-16 delegates approval of roadside tree cutting permits to CENROs which delegation is not in conformity with the special law mentioned; 4) R.A. 3571 does not absolutely prohibit removal of roadside trees. It sets exceptions such as public safety, among others; 5) But before each roadside tree is removed, the said law requires steps to be followed like formal recommendation coming from LGU parks and wildlife committee and approval by the National Director of Parks and Wildlife, not the CENRO; hence, the law is clear that each tree is given administrative due process before being condemned;7) CENRO permits are inconsistent with the spirit of the law , lumping many trees in one permit, e.g. 32 trees in Naga Cebu; and, 8) Implementation of a duly approved tree cutting permit requires the attendance of committee members to ensure that the condemned tree is the same tree to be cut, removed or trimmed.”