Res ipsa loquitor

I got several reactions from my last column about that unfortunate acacia tree in front of the Silliman High School, which was cut to make way for the stairs of a concrete overpass that is being built there.

For some strange reason, all the feedback I gathered over the weekend were from people who were against the cutting of the tree. That got me wondering, isn't there a single soul out there who approves of the decision to cut the tree?

My question was answered last Monday, when I received copies of three letters from the City Mayor's Office, which sought to clarify the permission given by the City to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which became the basis for the issuance of the Permit to Cut which it issued to the Department of Public Works and Highways on December 29.

It was DPWH District Engineer Rodrigo Catapusan who, in a letter dated Dec. 28, 2005, asked Community Environment & Natural Resources Officer Charlie Fabre for a permit to cut the acacia tree. The tree, which was there even before the construction of the overpass started, was preventing the contractor from installing the fourth stairway to the concrete structure. The DPWH already had a permit to prune the tree.

Now, I happened to have good teachers in agriculture during my elementary school days. Atty. Ray Moncada was one of those teachers, before he decided to become a lawyer. If I remember correctly what he told us back then, he said there's a trunk of a difference between pruning and cutting.

When you prune a tree, you cut the branches -- not the main trunk. Pruning, by its very definition, involves the elimination of unnecessary branches of a tree or plant, to encourage better growth. But while the DPWH was "pruning" the tree last December, the DENR told them to stop their "pruning" because what they were doing was actually cutting the tree, a violation of their promise during the public hearing called last December by the City Council.

This time, engineer Catapusan, in his letter, was very specific. He said they intended to cut the tree, leaving four meters of its trunk sticking out of the ground. Fabre then asked the City if they had any objection to the application of the DPWH.

In response, Mayor Agustin Perdices said the City has no objection to the request of the DPWH. But Perdices termed it differently. He said the City had no objection to the "pruning" of the tree, leaving four meters of the tree trunk, as applied for by the DPWH.

Here, Mayor Perdices and engineer Catapusan were in perfect agreement over what had to be done. They just differed in their terminologies. What Catapusan said was "cutting", Perdices only referred to as "pruning."

However you call it, that is exactly what is left of the tree today. Res Ipsa Loquitor, goes a maxim in law. "The thing speaks for itself."

Is the tree dead? Many people believe so.

On the other hand, City Environment Officer Rolly Clamonte insists that the tree is not dead. "New branches will soon come out," he told me confidently.

Well, I sure hope so, as this project has already done more than enough damage, strained nerves, and relationships among well-meaning people of this City of Gentle People.

In a few months, when the overpass shall have been competed, I hope no one would have to ask, "Was this worth all the trouble?"*

back to top