MANILA, Philippines — An environment official has been cleared of a graft charge stemming from his role in the Cherry Hills landslide that killed 59 people and destroyed 300 homes in Antipolo City nearly 12 years ago.
The Sandiganbayan has acquitted Sixto Tolentino, then a regional technical director of the Environment Department, of accusations that he had failed to impose or recommend several measures before the issuance of an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) to the Philippine-Japan Solidarity Corp. (Philjas), the developer of the ill-fated Cherry Hills Subdivision.
The court also criticized the fact-finding report on which the charge was based, saying it was done in haste.
According to prosecutors, Tolentino had failed to require the completion of an adequate drainage structure and the adoption of the measures to prevent erosion and avoid drainage impediments in Cherry Hills. The issuance of the ECC had allowed Philjas to secure a license from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to sell land and houses in the subdivision.
Tolentino was also accused of failing to monitor and inspect the development and construction of Cherry Hills.
Parts of Cherry Hills were buried in a landslide on August 12, 1999 after days of rain. Over 300 homes were buried or destroyed when mud and soil came rushing down. People were trapped in their homes and had to be dug out. Fifty-nine perished.
But according to the Sandiganbayan Second Division, the prosecution’s contention that Tolentino should not have issued the ECC because the Philjas project was only supported by a project description and not an environmental impact statement (EIS) did not hold water.
It said that under the rules of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Cherry Hills project only required the submission of a project description. An EIS did not have to be submitted if the DENR did not consider this necessary.
It also said that the issuance of the ECC to Philjas had followed the DENR requirements. It said that the requirement of an engineering, structural and geological assessment was only imposed days after the tragedy.
“Hence, the accused could not have been expected to have required the submission of a geological assessment for that would be stretching the conditions beyond what the law required at the time of the application of the ECC,” it said.
It added that it was only in March 2000 when the DENR required the geological and geohazard assessment, it added.
The anti-graft court also junked the contention that Tolentino had failed to monitor the Cherry Hills project.
It said that he could not be blamed for the absence of monitoring because he only served as regional technical director of Region IV from February 1994 to January 1996.
The court said that from the issuance of the ECC up to the time immediately prior to the landslide, he could not have kept an eye on Philjas’ compliance with the mitigating measures that he had recommended because the subdivisiom was being built when he was assigned to another region.
When the tragedy struck, he was no longer regional technical director for more than three years, it added.
It also said the monitoring should have been done by the Environmental Management Bureau.
The Sandiganbayan also criticized the fact-finding Report that was the basis for the filing of charges against Tolentino.
It noted that the report was based only on the documents sent to the panel, and that there was no site investigation on what had really caused the landslide. It said taking pictures was not a site investigation.
According to the court, there should have been a determination of the strength of the soil on a per square inch basis. This would have acted as a guide on whether the soil, despite mitigating measures, could absorb the unusually heavy amount of rainfall, it added.
It also said that what the investigating team did was to gather and collate documents to identify those responsible for allowing the development of the Cherry Hills area, and the probe had to be completed in 10 days.
“Indeed, everything was done in haste. For even experts could not have completed an investigation in such a short period of time unless the intention is just to pinpoint liability to whomsoever was involved in the project or has signed a document relative to the implementation of the project,” it said.
It said that while the graft officer who headed the probe was also an engineer, an engineering geologist and a hydrologist should have been on board to study slope protection or soil erosion, and the saturation point and flow of water in the area. The cracked rocks in the area and its effects should also have been looked at.