A reliable source is someone who was there and saw it with his own eyes

The following spread via text messaging and Facebook posts the past few days:

"From very reliable sources. Unseen by the public eye, SM has been slowly cutting the trees they were not allowed to cut. Tenants on that side of the mall were given until December to vacate their spots after which construction will commence TO EXTEND THE MALL, NOT BUILD A PARKING extension. Pls spread the word."

It would be good to know where this message came from. We had so many of these during the height of the protest against SM City Baguio - during that first rally, we all trooped from Malcolm Square to Luneta Hill when one of the speakers at the rally announced that SM has started cutting trees only to find out that it wasn't true. But that announcement caused emotions to run high that almost led to a violent confrontation with the police and SM's security guards. 

So I wonder who sent the original message, and who the reliable sources were. See,one of the members of the protest movement took it upon himself to do an ocular inspection and took photos of the expansion site - the photo showed no tree-cutting activity. Another photo taken by a local lawyer on October 1, 2014 and posted on Facebook showed the same (click here to view the photos).

So where did it come from? Could the message have come from SM City Baguio, to sort of test the waters? Could it be the handiwork of agents provocateurs?   

So much disinformation is going around that we have to remind ourselves that just because it's on Facebook, or somebody said it and spread it that it's true, in the same way that just because it's not on Facebook doesn't mean it's not happening. 

So before we panic, or react, let's go through it point by point. 

1. "Unseen by the public eye, SM has been slowly cutting the trees they were not allowed to cut." 

In April of 2012, a 72-hour Temporary Environmental Protection Order was issued by the court, and eventually extended to until the termination of the case filed against SM with Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court. 

That case was decided by the late Judge Antonio Estevez in December, 2012, dismissing the case that we filed. And while we have since filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, that decision of Branch 15 of the Baguio RTC effectively lifted the TEPO it issued. 

The case is still pending with the Court of Appeals. 

2. "Tenants on that side of the mall were given until December to vacate their spots after which construction will commence..."

We have yet to verify this information but initial probes revealed this also unverified information: there is a tenant who runs two shops located on the side of the expansion site whose lease is being terminated for violating SM's internal rules. 

We are still trying to verify both of the above information. 

3. "...construction will commence TO EXTEND THE MALL, NOT BUILD A PARKING extension."

While the movement also pointed out in its protest against the plan that building an additional parking facility may contribute to the traffic congestion in the area for this will just encourage motorists to bring their car into the city's central business district, the SM City Baguio expansion plan has always been a mall extension, which just happened to have a parking facility incorporated in the design.   

We still stand by our opposition to the expansion plan as it was originally presented to the public in late 2011. SM has since redesigned its expansion plan (See; Option 2). Reactions to the redesign have been varied - some welcomed it, some rejected it. 

As for me, I opposed the expansion plan and continue to oppose it because I believe that removing one of the last forest covers in the Central Business District....

...would adversely affect the air quality in the area.

...sets a dangerous precedent: if SM was allowed to do it, why can't other corporations do the same? We saw this already in the Moldex construction project along Marcos Highway.

...would increase the risk of soil erosion in the area that could result in landslides, endangering lives and properties directly below the hill.
...would greatly reduce the water absorption capability of the hill which may result in increased water run off in the area.

I say it again: it's not so much about what they're going to build, but what they would kill in order to build it.