Despite license, Boracay casino project can’t proceed yet — DOJ
The plan of Macau-based casino giant Galaxy Entertainment Group Ltd. to build a $500-million integrated resort in Boracay Island cannot proceed just yet despite securing a license from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor), Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said yesterday.
He stressed that such a project faces an uphill battle, especially after a Palace pronouncement that President Duterte has not approved it. He added that the proposed construction of the casino-resort, which will reportedly start next year, could not proceed until after several legal requirements are met.
Guevarra explained that the legal process to allow the construction of a casino in the world-renowned island requires the long and tedious reclassification of land portions already declared in 2008 by the Supreme Court as either forest or agricultural lands.
“Reclassification is essentially an executive function. And if the President has said that he will not allow casinos on the island, it will certainly be an uphill climb for anyone who intends to build one,” he told The STAR.
Galaxy reportedly secured last March a provisional license to build an integrated resort, together with its local partner Leisure and Resorts World Corp., on a 23-hectare property in Boracay’s Barangay Manoc-Manoc.
But the Palace has recently announced that Duterte is planning to reclassify the island for land reform purposes. The President also insisted that he would not allow a casino to be built in Boracay, which he ordered closed since April for rehabilitation.
Guevarra believes that the casino cannot be built at the moment because of the high court decision that classified 400 hectares of the island, including beachfronts, as reserved forestland meant for “protection purposes” and that cannot be privately owned.
“Assuming that a large area of the island is in fact forestland, no part of it can be appropriated by any person. There has to be a declaration by the state that the land is alienable,” he explained when asked for his legal opinion on the matter.
“It’s not that easy. Reclassification of land is a complicated process,” Guevarra stressed.
In its ruling, the SC cited reclassification of the island as a suggestion. It explained that Congress needs to pass a law that would reclassify the lands and entitle the claimants to ownership over certain areas.
Apart from the reclassification process both in the executive and legislative branches, Gue- varra believes that legal issues on building a casino in Boracay could also reach the SC because “it may even involve constitutional issues.”
The SC classified the owners of resorts fronting the shoreline as “builders in good faith” because the area is a forestland that cannot be privatized.
“The continued possession and considerable investment of private claimants do not automatically give them a vested right in Boracay. Nor do these give them a right to apply for a title to the land they are presently occupying,” held the 35-page decision penned by now retired Associate Justice Ruben Reyes.
“At any rate, the Court is tasked to determine the legal status of Boracay Island, and not look into its physical layout. Hence, even if its forest cover has been replaced by beach resorts, restaurants and other commercial establishments, it has not been automatically converted from public forest to alienable agricultural land,” it stressed.
The SC has affirmed Proclamation 1064 issued by then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which classified Boracay Island into 400 hectares of reserved forestland for “protection purposes” and 628.96 hectares of agricultural land that is “alienable and disposable.”
It explained that only owners with valid land titles since June 12, 1945, the date prescribed under the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act 141, could claim ownership to their properties in the island. Most owners of beachfront properties are without titles.
Under the law, unclassified lands are considered public forests and only agricultural lands can be disposed for private ownership.
The Court ruled that even those who occupy their properties “since time immemorial” cannot make ownership claims without valid original titles obtained from the period.