Pablo John warns city: Limiting use of gov’t lots violates the law
Linette C. Ramos & Gerome M. Dalipe
A PROPOSAL to limit the use of government-owned lots in Banilad and Talamban is unconstitutional, Rep. Pablo John Garcia (Cebu Province, 3rd district) said yesterday.
If the Cebu City Council pursues the measure, the congressman warned that a string of charges will be filed against City Hall officials.
Panagbenga 2009 blog
“I’d just like to remind the City Council that under our Constitution, under our laws, this (proposal) cannot be done,” Garcia said in a press conference yesterday.
The governor’s brother indicated he will seek the disbarment of lawyer-councilors who will vote for the proposal. He will also suggest that the Capitol file graft cases before the Office of the Ombudsman against councilors who will vote in favor of the ordinance or whoever signs it into law.
The passage of such a measure would violate the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act “for causing undue injury to any party including the government through manifest partiality, bias or evident bad faith.”
If the Cebu City Council approves the proposed measure, government-owned properties in the Banilad-Talamban corridor cannot be developed for commercial purposes.
Councilor Gerardo Carillo said yesterday he will also propose regulating the construction of buildings to make sure they don’t contribute to the traffic congestion there.
“We will limit it to a certain height, up to five stories perhaps so it will not clog the main thoroughfare. If you will not declog that area, the development of the northern barangays will be compromised. No investor would want to go to the north because of the heavy traffic,” he told reporters.
Mayor Tomas Osmeña said regulating development in the corridor will allow the City to keep to a minimum the traffic in the area, and encourage more development in the mountain barangays in the north district.
“If we’re going to clog Ban-Tal, we can’t go to the other barangays in the north because there’s only one way to get there... Basically, the idea is to put a freeze on development of government land for commercial purposes in Ban-Tal because they will contribute to traffic... Provincial properties are right smack in the middle of that area,” Osmeña said in a news conference yesterday.
Civil case
Garcia, however, stressed the proposal violates the Constitution. If the measure is passed, he will suggest to Capitol lawyers to file a civil case against the City Council to declare the ordinance “unconstitutional, illegal and void.”
Citing a Supreme Court ruling in the City of Manila vs. Laguido Jr. case, Garcia said limiting the use of Capitol-owned lots in the Banilad area is illegal since it is “tantamount to the taking of property of the landowner” through regulation.
Cebu City Planning and Development Coordinator Nigel Paul Villarete, however, said the Urban Housing and Development Act specifically states that all government lands should be used for public purposes.
“Zoning a certain area does not mean confiscation of the property. It only defines the land use, and not the ownership of the properties. In other words, the land still belongs to you. If we’re going to gain ownership of the lots, then that’s when a government unit is entitled to compensation,” Villarete said.
Garcia, however, said that if the owner can no longer use the property according to its purpose, then that amounts to taking the property “through an act, regulation or ordinance.”
“You cannot do that in an ordinance because that is in violation of the constitutional prohibition against taking of private property for public purposes,” he said.
If the purpose of the City of Manila in passing its ordinance was “purely for welfare,” which was to curb the proliferation of prostitution in the Ermita-Malate area, Garcia said Cebu City Council’s justification is different.
“We have mountains of evidence to prove that the motivation really is to retaliate against the Province for the failed land swap deal,” said Pablo John.
Motive
“The motivation of the City of Cebu is not for the general welfare but to hit back at the Province of Cebu,” he said.
Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, meanwhile, said the Capitol will always abide by the law. “We will protect our legal rights because that is our mandate and responsibility,” said Garcia.
Governor Garcia confirmed the Province is still pursuing its Ciudad project, a proposed P1.2-billion development that includes a mall and condominium units on a 2.8-hectare property in Barangay Banilad.
The project was stalled when Cebu City implemented a moratorium on new developments there.
Carillo said that based on the Cebu City Zoning Ordinance, public use means a property can only be developed as parks, playgrounds, public schools, socialized housing, institutional buildings such as police stations and other public buildings.
“Basically, it means that the general public will be able to benefit from the use of the land. It can only be developed into something that the general public will be able to use, including socialized housing,” he told reporters.
Welcome
Carillo and Councilor Hilario Davide III said the Capitol is welcome to file any kind of lawsuit they want to file against City officials if the ordinance is approved.
Davide said he expects to hear the same objections that the Capitol raised in January last year, during the public hearing on the proposed ordinance, which was stalled because of negotiations between the Capitol and the City.
City Hall vs. Capitol
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
