WHAT importance of reducing the figures of the Chocolate Hills as protected area and giving a respite to the livelihood of the inhabitants residing nearby has become settling to others but unsettling to some.
This surfaced as Congresswomen Alexie B. Tutor and Vanessa C. Aumentado and Cong. Baba Yap, who jointly co-authored, wanted their proposed House Bill No. 831 that tries to amend the Expanded-National Integrated Protected Areas Act (E-NIPAS ACT) approved at the House of Representatives.
From used to be 1,776 Choco Hills in at least eight towns as determined by DENR, it is now being proposed to a mere 642. It will be recalled that before that figure (1,776), the Choco Hills are numbered 1,265.
Congw. Tutor clarified that those categorized number of Chocolate Hills, now 642, meet the new definition of what a Choco hill is. Those that don’t fit the definition are no longer considered as Choco Hill. She added that the new Choco Hills are now under the proposed Local Conservation Area (LAC), and therefor under the localities concerned.
The proposal also is considering to lessen the so-called “drawback” or easement area from 20 meters to 5 meters and the technical description of the 440 parcels having 642 Hills.
It tried to change the name from Chocolate Hills Natural Monument (CHNM) to Chocolate Hills Geological Monument (CHGM) and reducing the number directly affected in Batuan town from all barangays to just five as suggested by the DENR and the technical working group.
And the proposal also reduced the number of towns where Choco Hills are located from eight to only three, Carmen, Batuan and Sagbayan. The Choco Hills numbering 1,134 previously located in Sierra-Bullones, Valencia, Bilar, Catigbian and Clarin are off the chart.
But the proposal did not mention if the titled lots that include Choco Hill in some barangays being developed by the owner could be delisted as well or their respective titles or tax declaration cancelled. If this happens, would they (owners) be paid justly after due process?
Karl Michael Din, the Capitol geologist, has this to say in his fb post. “I understand the intent of the proposed amendment, and I am generally in support of it, but with reservations. What I find difficult to reconcile is the shift in terminology from “Natural” to “Geological,” as if geological is not inherently natural. That distinction seems unnecessary, but I know where it’s going.”
“Changing the classification and the boundaries… yes, eventual delisting from the E-NIPAS framework. If delisting or boundary adjustments do happen, then our LGUs need to be extra prudent in determining what types of development are appropriate in reclassified areas. This means revisiting land use plans, strictly requiring geotechnical studies before any development, and ensuring that infrastructure projects, especially those in between the hills, are nature-based and complementary to the surrounding landscape.
I just hope we understand that karst environment has limits, and those limits should guide how we decide and act.”
These came after the deliberation of the proposed amendment during the TWG meeting chaired by Tutor on April 8, 2026.
Gov. Aris Aumentado expressed support of said proposal in the said House bill, and support for the three towns covered by the proposed CHGM.
The governor and the three solons expressed gratitude to make this proposal prioritized and okayed. And also thank those responsible for the proposal in the persons of Sangguniang Panlalawigan, headed by Vice Governor Nick Besas, SP Committee on Natural Resources chair BM Jamie Aumentado-Villamor, DENR officials, PENRO-Bohol Jose Cleo Colis, CENRO- Tagbilaran Glicerita Racho, CENRO-Talibon Edgar Ricafort and LGUs concerned. (rvo)
