Environmental laws are enacted to ensure protection, conservation and sustainable management of the environment and natural resources, and they are not a license to exploit the environment for doing so is “grossly illegal.”

This was the reaction of La Liga Policy Institute (La Liga) to the proposed bill, House Bill 4995, seeking to “chop-chop” one of the big islands within the Hundred Islands National Park (HINP).

Presidential Proclamation 667 signed on Jan. 18, 1940 declared the group of islands in Alaminos City, Pangasinan, now known as HINP, as a “protected area,” and thus enjoys adequate protection under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) law.

HINP protection, and the island recognized worldwide because of its unique beauty and wonder, was strengthened when Presidential Proclamation 2183 dated April 27, 1982 was signed, making HINP, including Lucap Bay and its foreshore areas beginning from Sitio Telbang in the east to Sitio Recudo in the west, a Tourist Zone and Marine Reserve, La Liga stressed.

“The proposed measure to split up one of the biggest islands within the Hundred Island National Park in Alaminos City, Pangasinan clearly violates Republic Act 7586 or the NIPAS Act. HB 4995 is clearly illegal,” La Liga’s Jonathan Ronquillo said.

A policy research and advocacy group, La Liga serves as secretariat for the Environment Cluster of the Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI) which engages the government in the budget process. The group has been urging lawmakers to allocate funding support for the rehabilitation and development of protected areas and national parks which will receive no support under the proposed national
budget next year.

According to Ronquillo who conducted a study on protected areas and the legal basis for its existence, or disestablishments, any recommendation by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on disestablishing or modifying boundaries of a protected area must be backed-up and warranted by a study that has undergone a participatory process of public hearings and consultations.

The group, which exposed an attempt to “chop-chop” the HINP, expressed alarm that the passage of the proposed measure may be used to develop the island for residential, commercial and industrial purpose.