The Captain’s Peak Resort controversy in Bohol centers on its unauthorized construction within the protected Chocolate Hills landscape, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The resort operated without an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), yet was granted a business permit by Gov. Aris Aumentado. This led the Office of the Ombudsman to file graft charges against 96 officials—including past and present provincial officials, DENR executives, and municipal officials—for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (Contributed photo)

By DAVE SUAN ALBARADO

Hundreds of small business owners and residents living within the Chocolate Hills National Monument protected area are caught in a regulatory dilemma that pits environmental protection against economic survival, as government agencies move to enforce compliance with environmental laws that many say they were unaware of or unable to meet.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), through its Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), has issued 434 notices of violation (NOVs) to establishments operating without Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) in four municipalities within the expanded protected area — Carmen, Batuan, Bilar, and Sagbayan. 

While the DENR has clarified it has not issued closure orders, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has requested documentation for potential criminal cases against violators, prompting widespread anxiety among affected residents and business owners.

According to data presented during an October 22, 2025 special meeting of the Chocolate Hills National Monument Protected Area Management Board (PAMB), the violations are concentrated in alienable and disposable lands as well as timberlands:

Sagbayan: 188 NOVs issued, 14 PAMB clearances obtained

Batuan: 100 NOVs issued, 8 PAMB clearances obtained  

Carmen: 76 NOVs issued, 21 PAMB clearances obtained (though local officials claim the actual number is higher)

Bilar: 70 NOVs issued, 1 PAMB clearance obtained

The discrepancy between violations and clearances reveals the scale of non-compliance — or alternatively, the practical difficulties residents face in meeting regulatory requirements.

Legal Framework

The conflict stems from Republic Act No. 11038, officially titled “An Act Declaring Protected Areas and Providing for Their Management,” which amended the original National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7586). Enacted to strengthen environmental protections, RA 11038 is known as the Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System (E-NIPAS) Act authored by then 2nd District Cong. Aris Aumentado.

Under this law, the Chocolate Hills National Monument gained enhanced protection, with the number of recognized hills expanding from 1,265 to 1,776.

PAMB has defined a Chocolate Hill as “a karst geological formation with a conical to dome-shaped landforms characterized by rolling to very steep terrain, with an elliptical or circular base, either isolated or subtly interconnected with adjacent similar formations, predominantly covered with grasses/shrubs exhibiting seasonal color transition from green to brown and remaining largely unaltered from mid-slope to summit.”

The expanded designation brought with it stricter requirements for anyone conducting business or development within the protected area. 

Under Presidential Decree No. 1586 (1978), as amended, and its implementing rules under DENR Administrative Order 2003-30, projects and undertakings within environmentally critical areas require an ECC before operations can commence.

Section 20 of RA 11038 specifically prohibits several activities within protected areas without proper authorization, including constructing permanent structures and operating businesses without the necessary permits and clearances from the PAMB and relevant government agencies.

Violators face penalties under Section 26 of RA 11038: imprisonment of one year to six years, fines ranging from P100,000 to P1 million, or both, at the court’s discretion.

Moreover, Section 27 mandates that “any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be civilly liable for damages and for the restoration or rehabilitation of the area.”

The regulatory enforcement has created particular hardship in Batuan, where the town’s entire territorial asset falls practically within the E-NIPAS coverage area. 

Many residents and business owners claim they established their livelihoods long before the protected area laws were crafted and implemented.

Nestor Canda, former Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) who now serves as barangay captain of Poblacion Sur, Batuan, presided over the October 22 PAMB meeting where these concerns were aired. 

Canda confirmed that residents worry about enforcement actions against people who have lived and worked in the area for generations.

An unnamed concerned citizen from Batuan posted an open letter to national government agencies and the Provincial Government of Bohol, expressing frustration with what they described as “sudden and harsh implementation of the law.” The letter emphasized that affected businesses are primarily owned by small entrepreneurs struggling to survive.

“It is not about money but justice, fairness and equality,” the letter stated, questioning whether it is fair to penalize business owners who were never informed about ECC requirements or to deny livelihoods to people who have been protecting the hills through their stewardship.

Government Response

The Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Tagbilaran issued a statement during the PAMB meeting to clarify that no closure orders have been issued — only notices of violation. 

However, CENRO representatives acknowledged they face pressure to provide documentation to the NBI for case build-up against establishments operating without ECCs, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly prepared to file criminal charges.

Batuan Mayor Atty. Emmanuel Tumanda, who recently met with NBI officials in Manila, emerged with assurances that no drastic measures would be taken immediately. 

“They assured us there’ll be no drastic measures, like closure against the establishments, but it will conduct review and probe for case build-up after explaining to them the real score,” Tumanda said in a statement.

The mayor expressed hope that this reprieve would give affected business owners time to secure the required documentation and comply with environmental requirements. 

He pledged to coordinate efforts among the provincial government, DENR offices at provincial and regional levels, and affected local government units.

Bohol Governor Aris Aumentado personally attended the October 22, 2025 meeting and assured residents his administration would work toward resolving the conflict. 

He pledged to communicate with the DOJ officer-in-charge to request adequate time for affected residents to comply with environmental requirements, or bend the law.

“People here need to be assisted so as not to deprive them of their livelihood,” Aumentado said, pointing to Bohol’s recent progress in poverty reduction. 

The province has decreased its poverty incidence from 19 percent to 14 percent. “What if these people lose their livelihood? Will the poverty incidence go up again?” the governor asked.

The situation in Bohol mirrors legal troubles faced across the Philippines’ 244 protected areas covering approximately 7 million hectares. 

The E-NIPAS Act, while strengthening environmental protections, has often created friction with indigenous communities and long-established residents whose traditional lands and livelihoods fall within newly designated or expanded protected areas.

The law attempts to address this through provisions for sustainable development and recognition of ancestral domain rights under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371). 

However, implementation has proven complicated, particularly in areas like the Chocolate Hills where tourism, agriculture, and residential uses have developed over decades.

Environmental groups generally support strict enforcement of protected area regulations, citing the degradation of natural landscapes and biodiversity loss across the archipelago. 

The Philippines is recognized as a biodiversity hotspot but faces significant environmental challenges including deforestation, habitat loss, and the impacts of climate change.

The Chocolate Hills, considered a geological wonder and major tourist attraction, exemplify the conservation issues. 

The unique karst formations are vulnerable to various threats including inappropriate development, vegetation changes, and erosion. 

Balancing protection of these iconic landforms with the needs of surrounding communities presents a microcosm of larger environmental governance challenges.

As of late October 2025, the situation remains unresolved. 

While immediate enforcement actions appear to be on hold, the fundamental conflict persists: businesses and residents operating without required environmental clearances face potential criminal and civil liability, yet many lack the resources or knowledge to achieve compliance.

The concerned citizen’s letter called for “a balance and fair treatment or humane solution,” suggesting possible approaches might include just compensation for titled lands within the protected area, relocation assistance, or grandfathering provisions for long-established businesses willing to comply with operational restrictions.

Carmen Municipal Administrator Atty. Eliezer Cagol noted that the actual number of violations in his municipality exceeds official DENR figures, suggesting the scope of the problem may be larger than documented.

The PAMB, which includes representatives from national agencies, local government units, and civil society, will likely play a central role in negotiating solutions. 

Under RA 11038, the PAMB has significant authority over management decisions within protected areas, including the issuance of clearances and permits.

Legal and Policy Questions

The Chocolate Hills case raises several unresolved questions about environmental law enforcement in the Philippines:

First, what transition provisions should apply to residents and businesses predating protected area designations? While RA 11038 includes provisions for “legitimate occupants,” implementation details remain contentious.

Second, how should enforcement priorities balance environmental protection against livelihood security, particularly in economically vulnerable communities? The due process clause of the Philippine Constitution requires that regulations affecting property and livelihood not be arbitrary or oppressive.

Third, what assistance should government provide to help communities achieve compliance rather than simply penalize non-compliance? The law mandates environmental protection but is less clear about government obligations to support affected communities.

As the October 22 meeting concluded, stakeholders agreed to continue dialogue and coordination. 

For the hundreds of families facing notices of violation, the outcome of these discussions will determine whether they can maintain their livelihoods while contributing to environmental protection — or whether conservation and community welfare remain on opposing sides of an unresolved conflict.