Home  

  About Us  

  Contact Us 

  Subscribe     Advertise  
  Archives     Feedback     Register     Help  
 
 

Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004

 

R2 port hounded by smuggling charges

By Lakambini A. Sitoy, Karen Capino, Janice Alonso

(Conclusion)

Harbor Center Terminal has already been hounded by controversy separate from the Smokey Mountain project. On August 30 The Manila Times ran a report on an alleged attempt to smuggle in some P35 million worth of rice through the terminal, also known as Pier 22.

Documents obtained by The Times said the M/V Astro, a private ship, berthed at the terminal on April 8, 2001, carrying 35,000 bags of rice from Bangkok, Thailand. The shipment was consigned to a Cavite concern that reportedly had no business permit. The alleged shipper’s name did not appear on the list of the National Food Authority’s grains dealers or retailer licensees. from A1

In a press release Harbor Center denied this and prior reports of smuggling on its premises. It said Michael Romero, its chief executive officer, had sent an August 25 letter to Customs Commissioner George Jereos, saying the allegations were “apparently instigated by parties benefiting from the existing monopoly in cargo-handling operations in Manila.”

An August 31 Manila Times report quotes Deputy Customs Commissioner Gil Valera as saying, “[Harbor Center’s] operation is illegal because it violates the Customs and Tariff Code of the Philippines.” The Code provides that the Department of Finance, with the endorsement of the Bureau of Customs, shall issue a permit to HCT to operate as a private commercial port, not the Philippine Ports Authority. Harbor Center got a permit to operate—as a domestic port—from the PPA.

Contract terminated, with conditions

On August 27, 2003, a memorandum of agreement was signed between the National Housing Authority (NHA) and R2 Builders. It terminated all previous agreements entered into by the two parties, but provided for partial payment of P250 million to R2 Builders and conveyance of a three-hectare portion of the Vitas Industrial area to the developer.

The agreement did not put an end to the controversy. In February the NHA awarded a consortium headed by R2 Builders a P217.9-million contract to complete the Smokey Mountain project. The NHA board of directors approved the award. The other members of the consortium were Bauer International Philippines Inc. and the Philippine Ecology System Corp.

At the time of the new contract, according to documents obtained by The Times, R2 Builders had finished only 21 buildings with 2,520 units out of the 33 buildings and 2,904 units it was supposed to put up. Land development for this component was only 41.86-percent completed.

Constitutional issue

Another issue that needs to be resolved is the constitutionality of the grant to R2 Builders of reclaimed land.

In her privileged speech at the Senate on August 11, Senator Santiago declared that reclaimed land is part of the public domain, that public lands can be sold exclusively through a law enacted by Congress, and that legislation is the only means by which reclaimed lands can be sold by the government to private parties.

She cited Article 12 of the Constitution, on the National Economy and Patrimony, which provides in Section 2 that: “All lands of the public domain, waters . . . and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. . . .” and in Section 3 that “. . . the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held or leased. . . .”

She then cited jurisprudence: the 1960 case of Ignacio v. Director of Lands (Philippine Reports, vol. 108, p. 335), which, she said, “first emphasized . . . the principle that certain public lands cannot be sold without congressional consent.”

She also cited the 1990 case of Laurel v. Garcia (Supreme Court Reports Annotated, vol. 187, p. 797), “which prohibited the sale of the Roppongi property in Japan owned by the Philippine government.”

To support her contention that reclaimed land is public domain, she invoked the findings of the 1997 Senate investigation into the PEA-Amari land deal that three reclaimed islands off the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road in Parañaque City were public lands, which the PEA could not alienate in favor of Amari.

She then cited the 2002 Supreme Court ruling on the PEA-Amari case, Chavez v. PEA and Amari (Supreme Court Reports Annotated, vol. 384, p. 152): “Since then and until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale.”

Santiago would question the legality—the constitutionality—of a crucial aspect of the Smokey Mountain Development Project: the “enabling component” itself, the grant of reclaimed land to R2 Builders that the cash-strapped Aquino administration had conceived of in 1988 as an incentive for a developer to begin dismantling the embarrassment that was Smokey Mountain.

In a reformist mode, Santiago proposed in her privileged speech a series of steps to transform reclaimed land into alienable land:

“1. . . . Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources first decides whether the lands reclaimed from the sea can be classified as public agricultural lands. If so, the DENR makes the proper recommendation to the President.

“2. Under the Public Land Act, Section 8, the President exercises the authority to classify inalienable lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. . . .

“3. The government declares that these lands are no longer needed for public use, public service or quasi-public use.

“4. Under the Public Land Act, Section 63, the PEA [Public Estates Authority] asks the DENR for authority to dispose of the land.

“5. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which exercises supervision and control over alienable and disposable public lands, issues an authority to the PEA to reclaim areas underwater.

“6. The PEA undertakes the physical reclamation of areas underwater, whether directly or through private contractors.

“7. Under the Public Land Act and the Government Auditing Code, the PEA conducts a public bidding in selling or leasing these lands, but it cannot sell the lands to private corporations.

“8. If the public auction fails, a negotiated sale is allowed, but the Commission on Audit must approve the selling price.

“9. Under both the [Build-Operate-Transfer] Law and the Local Government Code, the contractor or developer, if a corporate entity, can be paid only with leaseholds on portions of the reclaimed land.

“10. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, Congress enacts a law which authorizes and approves the conveyance of real property of the government.”

The bundle of issues surrounding R2 Builders and the Smokey Mountain project has been referred to the Senate Committee on Public Accountability, or the blue-ribbon committee.

More than the legality of the contracts in question, the committee will look into why the developer, through three and perhaps four administrations, consistently bagged sweetheart deals with the government, from asset-pool financing to virtual exculpation of liability for its failures to complete the Smokey Mountain project.

The committee may recommend the filing of criminal charges against the parties involved, and then the case shall go to the office of the Ombudsman, who may then file the case in the Sandiganbayan, the antigraft court. With the possible elevation of the case to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, it may take years for what is now being called the Smokey Mountain scam to be finally resolved.

To the former squatters of Smokey Mountain, these legal processes will not have much impact on their lives, except to result in occasional, step-by-step improvements to their new homes.

One aspect of the trash-heap development project has at least been fulfilled—they now have roofs over their heads, for which they are paying socialized rates of up to a third, according to the MIT study, of what the real estate actually costs. The government, in a now familiar refrain, shoulders the rest.

Part 1 |Part 2

    
 
 
 

Back To Top

 
 
 

Francis Andaya, Judee Perculeza, Marizhen Doctora, Shey Silayan
Powered by: 
The Manila Times Web Admin.

  

Home | About Us | Contact | Subscribe | Advertise | Feedback | Archives | Help

Copyright (c) 2001 The Manila Times | Terms of Service
The Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Hosted by: