Above The Law?

The United BF Homeowners’ Association has filed a petition in the Office of the Ombudsman, claiming that it was unconstitutional and unlawful for City Mayor of Parañaque to disburse public funds of the City of Parañaque for the clearing, repair and maintenance of the existing sidewalks of BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision. The sidewalks are private property of BF Homes, Inc. Hence, the city government could not use public resources on them. In undertaking the project, therefore, respondent allegedly violated the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes as well as Sections 335 and 336 of RA 7160 [Local Government Code of 1991] and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Undoubtedly, the respondent city mayor, through his legal adviser, is invoking the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in justifying the project [including the construction of a two-story Barangay Hall at the Aguirre Park], as follows:

“When [a strip of land] was withdrawn from the commerce of man as the open space required by law to be devoted for the use of the general public, its ownership was automatically vested in the [LGU] and/or the Republic of the Philippines, without need of paying any compensation to [the developer], although it is still registered in the latter’s name. Its donation by the owner/developer is a mere formality.” [193 SCRA 765]

But the 1991 White Plains ruling was modified by the Supreme Court in 1998, holding that subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation. [297 SCRA 547]

Under subdivision laws [PD-957, 1216], lots allotted by subdivision developers as road lots include roads, sidewalks, alleys and planting strips. Thus, what is true for subdivision roads or streets applies to subdivision sidewalks as well. Ownership of the sidewalks in a private subdivision belongs to the subdivision owner/developer until it is either transferred to the government by way of donation or acquired by the government through expropriation.

The Court has laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure: it is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the State resulting from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business does not justify their aid by the use of public money. [Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 (1960)]

Section 335 of RA 7160 is clear and specific that no public money or property shall be appropriated or applied for private purposes. This is in consonance with the fundamental principle in local fiscal administration that local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.

Therefore, the use of LGU funds for the improvement of privately-owned sidewalks [and the construction of the Barangay Hall] in BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision is unlawful as it directly contravenes Section 335 of RA 7160.

The case filed by the homeowners association is hardly moving, if at all, thanks to the mayor’s influential legal adviser. How can the validity of the challenged appropriation and expenditure be determined if the Ombudsman prosecutor sits on the case?

We can make the difference

After having scrimped and saved and then spent our life savings for a house in BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision in order to enjoy a well deserved peace and quiet away from the madding crowd, so to speak, we find that we are to suffer the sad fate of having the same madding crowd practically in our front yards, complete with cars and vans to boot.

Our politicians have shove aside our families’ welfare in the interest of commerce, opening our main gates to a huge influx of outsider traffic that includes squatters, commuters, short-cutting motorists, and even prowlers, thieves, rapists, and all sort of criminals.

Criminals are now roaming free in and out of BF Homes to commit murder, armed robbery, “akyat-bahay,” carjacking, carnapping and snatching. Even our PCJ church parishioners within the confine of the church premises were not spared by the brutality of crime.

We have to queue up to get in and out of the subdivision. BF Homes is now the main artery for traffic to and from Cavite/Las Piñas and Parañaque, Pasay, Makati and points north. Foot traffic has drastically increased and we no longer know the background and number of strangers roaming our neighborhoods.

In a word, we have the distinction of having been chosen by the mayor of Parañaque to be fed to his constituents!

The commercialization cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be described as promotive of the health, safety, peace and order, education, morals, comfort and convenience, or protection of property – in short, the wellbeing and general welfare – of the greater number of residence of BF Homes. For the serenity, peace and quiet have been replaced by the chaos, turmoil and frenzy of commerce. Where there was no crowding, congestion, and air and noise pollution, these banes of the so-called “progress” now pervade and suffocate the environment. To characterize the re-zoning as an exercise of police power would be retrogressive.

To paraphrase a justice of the appellate court, part of the allure of subdivision living is the comparative privacy and exclusivity which the residents enjoy. Otherwise, we might as well have lived along the main road and spared ourselves the expense of paying a premium for our abodes. Perhaps Mayor Jun Bernabe and his obedient cohorts would not would not think too highly of their idea of general access through subdivision roads if it were they whose relaxation would be disturbed by the constant honking of horns and the screeching of tires, or if they had to live in constant fear of a wayward car plowing through their front doors, decimating the entire household, maids, children and all.

We are saddled with officials who cannot seem to grasp even the basic fundamentals of urban planning, who lack the creativity to increase the city’s coffers except by increasing real estate taxes and who exhibit a total disregard for a healthy environment.

We made the difference in the 2004 election with a voter’s turnout of 60% instead of the usual 10%. Let’s all go out in the upcoming May election to express our indignation by voting them out of office.

Promises Revisited

Promising to find “immediate solution to the chronic water supply shortage” [translation: “walang tubig!”] and respect the will of the majority on the question of commercialization of the subdivision’s main streets, then candidate Jun Bernabe convinced Association officials to tirelessly campaign for him as city mayor. Association officials campaigned for new voters registration and provided free transportation during the 2004 election. The result was that 60% (instead of the usual less than 10%) of registered BF Homes voters turned out to vote.

Upon assumption into office, Mayor Jun Bernabe opened the roads of the subdivision to the general public in utter disregard of the sentiments of the residents and his electoral promise to abide by the will of the majority. In a classic case of too little, too late, he has “created a water crisis committee to find immediate and long-term solutions to the chronic water supply shortage in BF Homes Subdivision and other communities in the city.”

The membership of the committee is composed, naturally, of his business cronies and obedient cohorts. Consequently, except as an aid for re-election in the upcoming election, nothing really is expected of this committee but hot air.

This is not unlike his electoral promise when he first ran as mayor. The resolution of the waterless subdivision makes for a good electoral campaign. The incumbent mayor, it must be conceded, is unlike the other politicians when it comes to personal honor of keeping one’s word. He has, after all, created a water crisis committee to look into the problem even if “water supply [of his constituents] is a national government concern.”

The re-electionist mayor’s “praise” release that “Parañaque City long wait for water is over” is a cruel joke. Good grief! He takes the BF Homes electorate as morons.

The pump at Villamor Airbase is not capable of pumping water to Parañaque, Muntinlupa and Las Piñas, assuming there is sufficient water from Balara. Since there have been no new installations of high capacity pumps and mains, nor will the developer agree to the takeover of BF waterworks system, the claim is nothing but a re-election gimmick.

Unlike animals, man lives by intellect and will and thus he lives not just for the moment but also binds himself to his future by his promises.

Without promises there could be no stable society. Nothing human holds together without this glue – the very glue that is becoming unglued today. I mean the individual promise-keeping. There is no sense of personal honor of keeping one’s word anymore. We have become a society of Pontius Pilates, washing our hands of responsibilities as he did. Yet a man who does not keep his promises is not a man; he is a weasel.