THE Supreme Court (SC) has denied the motions for reconsideration filed by private claimants contesting its October 8, 2008 ruling declaring some 400-hectare of Boracay Island as reserved forestland that cannot be subject to private ownership.

In a resolution, the SC en banc affirmed anew the constitutionality of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's Proclamation 1064 that declares part of Boracay, a popular tourist destination, as alienable and opened the same to private ownership.

Arroyo Watch: Sun.Star blog on President Arroyo

The high court also turned down the bid of the claimants, Malay, Aklan Mayor Jose Yap, Dr. Orlando Sacay, Wilfredo Gelito, Mila Sumndad, Aniceto Yap, and Liberad Talipian, to hold oral arguments to go over the issues that have already been extensively discussed by the court.

"Considering that the basic issues in the twin petitions have been duly passed upon and private claimants presented no substantial argument or compelling reason for us to reconsider, to hold oral arguments on the motions for reconsideration would be futile and unnecessary," it ruled.

It dismissed claims of the claimants that the proclamation is unconstitutional as the President arrogated upon herself the power of classification with respect to forestlands, which power properly belongs to Congress and as a direct violation of property rights without due process of law.

Such argument, according to the court, cannot be given credence as this was raised for the first time by the private claimants and is considered a "collateral attack" on the validity of Sections 6 and 7 of the Public Land Act (PLA), the basis of Arroyo's action.

Under Section 6, the President, upon recommendation of the secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), shall from time to time classify lands of the public domain into alienable, timber and mineral lands.

On the other hand, Section 7 gives the President authority to declare what lands are open to disposition or concession.

"For reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be attacked collaterally," the SC said.

In its October 8 decision, the SC declared that Boracay Island is owned by the state and ruled that private claimants are ineligible to apply for a judicial confirmation of title over their occupied portions in Boracay even with their continued possession and considerable investment in the land.

It dismissed the claim of the affected residents, mostly owners of various resorts in the island, that Proclamation 1801 and its implementing circular issued by the late President Ferdinand Marcos did not place Boracay beyond the commerce of man since it was classified as a tourist zone, thus can be a subject of private ownership.

Private claimants, however, insisted that under Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act (CA) 141 or the Public Land Act, they had the right to have the lots registered in their names through judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.

However, the SC agreed with the government's position that the reliance of the claimants on Presidential Decree (PD) 1801 was misplaced as their right to judicial confirmation of title was governed by Commonwealth Act 141 and PD 705 issued by Marcos.

Based on CA 141 and PD 705, except lands covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain prior to Proclamation 1064.

Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under PD 705.

The petitioners further noted that areas covered by Proclamation 1801, such as Puerto Galera, Puerto Princesa, and entire Camiguin Island, among others, have already been titled to recognized owners by possession and sale transactions.

The SC further said the issue of whether private claimants have acquired vested rights or private ownership of the lands they occupy has been extensively discussed in its original decision.

It added that the court's decision does not preclude claimants from looking at other modes of applying for original registration of title. (ECV/Sunnex)

For more Philippine news, visit Sun.Star Dumaguete.

(December 18, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.