THE demolition of homes at Mactan-Benito Ebuen Airbase in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, has reignited a decades-old conflict: How far should a presidential proclamation for military use override established private rights and the needs of local families?
The clash between the Philippine Air Force (PAF) and families—many heirs of retired air force personnel—highlights the tension between legal authority, humanitarian concerns, and the lure of commercial profit in rapidly developing areas.
The appeal
On Nov. 14, 2025, Lapu-Lapu City officials, Representative Junard “Ahong” Chan and Mayor Ma. Cynthia “Cindi” King Chan, submitted an urgent appeal to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. They requested a deferral of a demolition order scheduled for Nov. 19, citing humanitarian and equitable reasons.
The demolition, ongoing since Sept. 25, 2024, has already destroyed about 40 houses, displacing families of retired air force personnel. Officials argue that the writ of execution, issued over five years ago, may have become “dormant,” exceeding the legal execution period under the Rules of Court.
The conflict
This dispute mirrors a broader national issue over public land and military reservations. With limited land resources, conflicts often arise when government-designated land later gains commercial value, especially in urban areas.
The conflict stems from Proclamation 784, signed by President Fidel V. Ramos in 1996, which reserved the land in Lapu-Lapu City for military use while respecting existing private rights. Residents allege that the PAF is violating this provision, pushing demolition to free up land for commercial gain with private entities.
Why the appeal matters
For Families: Heirs of retired personnel are being displaced, raising questions about the social contract between the military and its personnel and the security of longstanding land tenure.
For the Legal System: The claim that the five-year-old writ is “dormant” challenges procedural rules. If the demolition proceeds despite the pending appeal for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals, it could set a controversial precedent for enforcing old court orders.
For Anti-Corruption Efforts: Allegations that the PAF prioritizes commercial profit over military use and residents’ welfare spotlight potential misuse of public land.
Residents’ voices
The conflict pits legal claims against appeals for justice. Jovenal Giangan, spokesperson for the Mactan Neighborhood Association, Inc. (MNA), said, “This is injustice; we are the victims, the heirs, and the demolished houses of the retired personnel.”
MNA vice president Anthony Orias criticized Proclamation 784 as flawed and unauthenticated by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Residents report harassment, including threats to cut off electricity, water, and benefits, pressuring families to leave. Many heirs have requested anonymity, claiming they have received no compensation.
What happens next
The Municipal Trial Court’s ruling on the appeal and the Court of Appeals’ decision on a TRO will determine whether demolition is temporarily halted. The outcome will set an important precedent for balancing military reservations with the rights and welfare of private citizens and the families of service personnel. / Bryce Ken Abellon, USJ-R intern