EDITORIAL
This land is not our land
The brouhaha on social media which erupted after the Captain’s Peak Resort in Sagbayan, Bohol went viral highlights problems on perspectives, responsibility, and accountability in protecting our environment and cultural heritage.
Some Boholano netizens lamented that those who criticized the construction of the resort at the foot of the Chocolate Hills are not Boholanos and do not have the right to meddle in the issue.This perspective must change. The Chocolate Hills are Grade I Level cultural properties under the Republic Act 11961 or the amended ‘National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, and as such, the natural monument is declared as part of the cultural property and natural property of cultural significance of the country.
The perspective on land ownership, especially our understanding of the concepts of jus utendi and jus abutendi in property ownership, more often than not resulted in environmental problems and obliteration of our cultural heritage. While a property owner has the right to enjoy his property (jus utendi) and to abuse, disuse and overuse his property (jus abutendi), the exercise of these rights, among others, is subject to reasonable regulations imposed by the State.
A property owner’s assertion of dominion over his or her property often conflicts with our shared responsibility to protect the environment and our cultural heritage as there is a tendency to ignore reasonable regulations and restrictions on the use of privately-owned properties. Much worse, if the property owner is fully aware of the limitations but chooses to bribe the regulators or the implementors of the law.
It is high time that we must change our mindset. A property owner’s assertion that “this is my land” highlights the tendency to exclude others and to use the property to the point of destruction. Yes, we can burn our house if we don’t like it but we are fully aware that causing damage to our neighbors’ lives and property is punished by law. So, we tend to be conscious in not doing anything that will directly cause harm or injury to others since our liability can be easily proven. But when other people suffer albeit indirectly from our act, we tend to deny responsibility and accountability since the nexus between our act and the damage or injury caused is difficult to prove. Who cares? This land is mine.
Certain natural resources belong to all and cannot be privately owned or controlled because of their inherent importance to each individual and society as a whole. This is the very foundation of the Public Trust Doctrine which reaffirms the superiority of public rights over private rights for critical resources. It impresses upon states the affirmative duties of a trustee to manage these natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations and embodies key principles of environmental protection: stewardship, communal responsibility, and sustainability.
The Public Trust Doctrine may be difficult to remember because it is an abstract legal concept. Even without applying complex legal concepts, protecting environment and culture can be simplified by declaring that the land that we have is not our land. We hold it in trust for the present and future generations.