MMDA on BF car “sticker” conflict: clueless

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chairman Bayani F. Fernando was quoted as saying that “all roads are public property” and that “even roads in private residential areas are no longer considered private, according to law” on the question of issuance of car “stickers” of private subdivisions, particularly BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision.

The kind of things the chairman is talking about is not trivial to me. They have driven me to disgust and near despair in the recent years.

After having scrimped and saved and then spent my life savings for a house in BF Homes Parañaque in order to enjoy well-deserved peace and quiet away from the madding crowd, I find the same madding crowd practically in my front yard, complete with cars, container vans, heavy trucks and squatters to boot.

The MMDA Chairman is quoted as saying: “All roads are normally open. The closing of roads require public hearings. A road is no longer private. Any road customarily used as a road is public.”

Good grief! The Chairman is clueless.

The takeover by the local government of the subdivision roads of BF Homes subdivision is patently illegal. The roads, sidewalks, parks and open spaces are privately titled to the developer. As such, the local government cannot simply take over private property without due process. In the words of the Supreme Court in Phicomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 “[a]ny regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection of the laws.”

On the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes, this is what the Supreme Court said in the case G.R. No. 148357 Aniano A. Albon vs. Bayani F. Fernando, et al:

“The ruling in the 1991 White Plains Association decision relied on by both the trial and appellate courts was modified by this Court in 1998 in White Plains Association v. Court of Appeals. Citing Young v. City of Manila, this Court held in its 1998 decision that subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation.”

“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.”

“In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court 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.”

“Therefore, the use of LGU funds for the widening and improvement of privately-owned sidewalks is unlawful as it directly contravenes Section 335 of RA 7160. This conclusion finds further support from the language of Section 17 of RA 7160 which mandates LGUs to efficiently and effectively provide basic services and facilities. The law speaks of infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the LGU and “which are funded out of municipal funds.” It particularly refers to “municipal roads and bridges” and “similar facilities.”

“Applying the rules of ejusdem generis, the phrase “similar facilities” refers to or includes infrastructure facilities like sidewalks owned by the LGU. Thus, RA 7160 contemplates that only the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of infrastructure facilities owned by the LGU may be bankrolled with local government funds.”

The issuance of vehicular stickers is not just an excuse to “raise funds”. In BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision, stickers serve as traffic volume regulator and computer data banks (of about 40,000 motorists) provide immediate identification of the criminal elements in our midst.

As to collection of fees, Rule V, Section 5 of the HLURB Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Association (series of 2004) recognizes the right of homeowners association to impose and collect reasonable fees on members and non-members residents who avail of or benefit from the facilities and services of the association, to defray necessary operation expenses; and to exercise other powers necessary for the governance and operation of the association.

The conflict in BF Homes started in 1997 with the re-zoning of the subdivision’s main roads to raise revenues for the municipality to qualify for cityhood being pushed by Congressman Roilo Golez. Yet today, like the biblical fence-sitter of old, he washes his hands of the responsibility for the destruction of the residential character of our neighborhood.

Be that as it may, this is my unsolicited advice to BF homeowners: Don’t take a politician’s statements at face value. “Since a politician never believes what he says, he is surprised when others believe him.” [Charles de Gaulle, one-time President of France].

More unsolicited advice: If you do care about all this nonsense, what can you do? Well, you have to speak up and make time to fight a guerrilla war. Write letters and emails of protest. Telephone their offices. Politicians may be sloppy about spending our tax money, but they fear negative publicity. There’s political power in numbers. Get your friends involved in the action.

Probing the HLURB takeover of UBFHAI

Respect, as we all know, is the state of being held in high esteem or honor. It is earned by treating others in an honest and caring way. When someone feels that you are not being fair or that you are putting your self interest ahead of his, you will not earn respect. Failing to deliver a favor or perform a service is the quickest way to lose it.

Our government, politicians and public officials are famous for shooting their mouths off and not following through. The restriction of “residence only” written in our transfer certificate of titles is a mute testimony that a government guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on.

It is sad that in our struggle to preserve the residential character of our neighborhood, BF Homes, Parañaque, residents think that the local government is the obstacle rather than the ally. For years the local government has been licensing commercial establishments in violation of zoning ordinance.

In 1997, the local government passed an ordinance that commercialized our main roads and made easy access to our homes by non-residents. To homeowners who value the security and privacy of their homes, this ordinance is frustrating and unpleasant. To raise revenues for the municipality to qualify for cityhood being pushed by Congressman Golez, the privately titled main streets of BF Homes were reclassified as commercial despite the lack of “… the written conformity or consent of the dully organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision” as required by Section 22 of PD-957.

The ordinance legalized many commercial establishments intruding into residential areas. These firms do not have their own drainage systems so they discharge wastes into the drainage systems of the subdivision which was designed for the use of homeowners, causing pollution and destruction of our roads.

You don’t have to look further than Parañaque for a preview of what is coming. Main street BF Homes will be transformed into another Doña Soledad Avenue of Better Living Subdivision.

The local government appropriated the homeowners’ park by building a barangay hall, police and fire department buildings, and a covered tennis court. It repaired the sidewalks and installed additional lampposts on the declared commercial roads. The roads, sidewalks, parks and open spaces in BF Homes are privately titled to the developer. Thus, no public money could be used on them.

In undertaking the projects, the mayor violated the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes, as well as Sections 335 and 336 of RA 7160, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. This means that the mayor and the councilors can be held liable for misappropriation or misuse of public funds, which can lead to the filing of graft and corruption against them.

Of course this is outrageous. You’d think that with a dismal record of doing nothing the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) would all resign in shame but no! Instead, Arbiter Dustan San Vicente praised himself and HLURB for protecting the homeowners at the congressional hearing probing into the takeover of the homeowners association by HLURB.

The takeover, without a writ of execution, is based on the complaint of a former president who alleged that “there were missing funds and equipment and other anomalies during the current term of the current United BF Homeowners’ Association [UBFHAI] President Celso Reyes.” That sounds like a criminal complaint and not included in the job description of the HLURB, for crying out loud. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity.

Arbiter San Vicente gave a long winded explanation of interlocutory order that confuses instead of clarifying his issuances. Technically, an interlocutory order is not appealable, we are told. Really? If so, why did the board of commissioners nullify his 5 orders?

Interlocutory Order is defined as an order determining an intermediate issue, made in the course of a pending litigation which does not dispose of the case, but abides further court action resolving the entire controversy. Such orders are not generally appealable until after the entire matter has been disposed of by final order or judgment.

I cannot imagine a regular district court issuing a writ of execution while the case is being appealed and heard by a superior court. That legal mumbo jumbo of the arbiter is a lot of nonsense and will not hold water. He offered no explanation of his issuances despite the HLURB rule that “the filing of an appeal … shall have the effect of automatically staying the execution of any decision or order…”

I can only shake my head in disbelief at the claim that the arbiter is doing a good job of protecting the homeowners. Good grief! The word “chutzpah” doesn’t come close to describing it. San Vicente’s self-appointed management committee forced open the Association’s vault and divested it with all its content of undetermined amount of money and documents, broke open all the filling cabinets, and took some of the documents out of the clubhouse. One of the appointed management committee member even took 2 vaults out of the clubhouse. Protection? Give me a break!

Why do these people do what they want, without worrying about sanctions? There are speculations, many unsavory. But I like this one: “Because they can.”

Nutrition and Health

“If you have your health, you have everything.” Don’t many people often say this? We would gladly exchange everything for our health. We pay doctors our entire savings to heal us, if necessary.

But not everyone who says, “If you have your health, you have everything”— only the old, the infirm or people whose health is at risk.

The laws of reality represent a real sequence of cause and effect; we live in effect of them. We must know them for such knowledge limits our freedom to guess but increases our freedom to act and think. Thus the law of gravity may mean that if from the top of a high cliff you see a man drowning, you may have to go down instead of jumping. Jumping represents a short-cut but it would destroy you and not help the drowning man.

The law of physical order follows the same sequence of cause and effect. Eating unhealthy foods produces unhealthy and fatal consequences. We are tempted to do short-cuts so we go to prayer healings or get somebody to pray over us when we get sick. It’s like jumping from a hilltop and expecting our Creator to catch us in mid-air or suspend the effect of gravity.

Our modern diet causes enormous problems for our health. But taking good care of ourselves is not just a health luxury. It’s an absolute necessity if we don’t want to be held hostage by pharmaceutical drugs, blood checkups and hospital stays. Not doing this only takes away more and more of our energies, our freedoms – even our lives.

The solution to our ailments is to get back into our natural state of vibrant health by “cleansing” ourselves from the inside, allowing our body to rest and heal itself. Think about it: For every disease, our immune system is triggered and it immediately starts fighting it. Our body can restore every wound, diseased organ or damaged cell that it needs to – but it cannot do that if we keep polluting it.

Most adults need 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day. Women and smaller less active people need fewer calories; men and larger, more active people need more calories. Wellness experts tell us that the distribution of calories should be: 40% to 50% from carbohydrates, 30% from fat and 20% from protein. We are strictly to avoid margarine, vegetable shortening and all products listing them as ingredients and all products made with partially hydrogenated oils of any kind.

Like most of us I simply cannot get the fruits and vegetables I want or figure out how to achieve a balanced diet of 33 nutrients. Instead, I take a good daily multivitamin-multimineral supplement for gaps in my diet.

You achieve good health through eating healthy food. There's no shortcut. There isn't a pill or an herb you can take to counteract an unhealthy diet. Don't roll the dice and gamble your life away. If you are under diet restriction, boost your immune system by taking a daily multivitamin-multimineral food supplement of 33 nutrients which requires little or no digestion. I survived a seven arterial heart bypass, failing kidneys, deteriorating prostate condition and falling weight by following a healthy and active lifestyle. I am a living proof that it works.

For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health which somebody sent via email. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.

1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer heart attacks than Americans.

5. The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans

CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you. Lol!

Happy New Year!

Indecent Haste

“HLURB takes over BF homeowners’ group… based on the complaint of a former president who alleged that “there were missing funds and equipment and other anomalies during the current term of the current United BF Homeowners’ Association President Celso Reyes.” [PhilStar, Sunday, Nov. 4, 2007].

You have just read a big problem with media. What was reported, whether right or wrong, could not be taken back.

The media can inform or entertain but they can also shape your opinions. And they can be used by powerful people to seduce, persuade and often lie to you. That’s dishonest, to paraphrase a respected journalist.

Journalism is a business, and the business of business is to make money and those who can best do that are the charlatans and opportunists. Come across or nothing gets printed or broadcasted, that’s “envelopemental” journalism.

Let’s get the story straight.

The sanction against the board of directors and the forcible takeover of the United BF Homeowners’ Association clubhouse was effected by a sheriff, several Parañaque policemen, about 50 civilian security units from the office of the Mayor, and a bunch of Barangay tanods. The word “overkill” is not even appropriate for this outrageous incident.

It is unusual to observe law enforcers in record numbers; hindi na kailangan sunduin pa [no need to pick them up] by homeowners calling for assistance. Law enforcers are blind to frequent broad daylight robbery-holdups and break-ins in the commercial areas and residential enclaves.

Homeowners are learning to leave at home their wallets, credit cards, expensive jewelries and cell phones when dining out or going to hair salons, a risky proposition at this time. This deplorable situation is the consequence of the mayor’s action of opening the main gates of the subdivision to the general public and prohibiting the posting of security guards at the main gates. It is ironic that his own brother and sister-in-law were victims of motorcycle-riding criminals in broad daylight robbery-holdup while having lunch in a restaurant.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the HLURB directive appointing a management committee over a duly elected board of directors was flawed. The disqualification of the complainant during the recent election precipitated the filing of the suit. The case against the Election Committee was an election controversy, pure and simple. How can the HLURB Arbiter issue any directive, let alone bind the Association and its Board of Directors, who are not even impleaded parties to the case?

The sheriff effected the takeover of the clubhouse without a writ of execution and the HLURB Arbiter practically re-wrote the rule in ordering his decision executory despite the perfection of an appeal. Section 4 Rule XVI of the HLURB Rules provide that the “filing of an appeal in accordance with these rules shall have the effect of automatically staying the execution of any decision or order of the Arbiter or Executive Committee, unless otherwise provided in these rules.”

Such indecent haste and “garapalan” [bare-faced] violation of the rule of law merits congressional investigation.

Like the soldiers in the Ninoy Aquino slay case who were criminally convicted, the classic defense of these modern Pontius Pilates is that they were “just following orders.” When will our law enforcers learn that following unjust or unlawful order is not a defense for a criminal act or an excuse for wrong doing?

A Sad Commentary On American Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door on Filipino-Americans born in the Philippines. By its denial to review the appellate court’s decision, the Court closed the window of opportunity to address a wider issue of national importance which cuts to the very core of America, its loyalties and the allegiance of its citizens.

The case arose when the [former] Immigration and Naturalization Service [“INS”] decided after 2 years that they committed an “error” in issuing the certificate, and after protracted proceedings, cancelled James’s [not his real name] certificate of citizenship. After exhausting administrative remedies, James brought an action for declaratory judgment and the district court declared him a U.S. citizen.

James, a “natural” son [his parents married in 1958] of a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. national mother, was born in the Philippines in 1931 during the territorial period [1898-1946]. After his father died in 1966, James sought to establish claim to U.S. citizenship, being frustrated by the interpretation given by the Department of State. He finally prevailed and was issued a certificate of citizenship in 1992 and thereafter his U.S. citizenship passport. His wife was admitted as a lawful permanent resident and resides with him, as well as his youngest children who immigrated as minors.

On appeal, the appellate court ruled that “residence in the Philippines during the territorial period does not qualify as residence ‘in the United States’ and ‘the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States’ under Revised Statutes §1993,” effectively reversing the decision of the district court.

Revised Statutes §1993, originally enacted in 1855 when the U.S. was not yet a colonial power provides that “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Under strict interpretation of the statute, children of U.S. citizens born in the Philippines during the territorial period were not born outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore, the statute does not apply. Yet they were not born “in the United States” under Article XIV, and could not gain citizenship in that manner. In other words, the absurd situation arises that these children, disenfranchised of their citizenship, could be considered to have fallen through a “statutory crack,” an aberration in law.

While children falling in the “statutory crack” may have been disqualified under the literal reading of the statute, the agency [INS] did not engage in the literal practice of disqualification for many years. Instead, U.S. agencies applied or interpreted or “constructed” Revised Statutes §1993 provisions to include those children as citizens. Likewise, residence in the outlying possessions was deemed sufficient to transmit citizenship to a child. James’s father, born and lived all his life in the Philippines, derived his U.S. citizenship at birth from his father [James’s grandfather] despite not being born outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States. R.W. Flournoy, Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State, at the hearings before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 76^th Congress, H1073-6, Nationality Act of 1940, testified:

“We have been holding in the State Department for years that, notwithstanding the peculiar language of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, which relates to a child born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, we have been holding that that is applicable to a child born in one of the outlying possessions; otherwise those children would be aliens.” [Revise And Codify Nationality Laws, pp. 55-56].

James’s entire life has been literally turned upside down by this event – cancellation or revocation of citizenship – when in truth and in fact the sole basis of the upheaval is a purported “error” that INS freely admitted in the application or “construction” of Revised Statutes §1993 which, if taken strictly, does not even apply to him. The liberties taken by INS in reading into the Statute a “construction” which excludes James from his citizenship is not only inequitable and unfair under the circumstances, but is at cross purposes with the substance and intent of the law itself. James in truth has no chance under the Statute, not because he is disqualified by it, but because it does not apply to him. What the INS asked the court to uphold is the application, interpretation or “construction” the INS itself gives to the Statute, which unfairly disqualifies James.

The Department of State since 1912 has held that Revised Statutes §1993 apply as of the date of birth, to child born out of wedlock in the outlying possessions of the United States, provided paternity is established. The Attorney General sustained the “construction” in an opinion of April 7, 1920. [32 Op. Atty. Gen. 162]. Ironically, the same Attorney General now holds that residence in the Philippines during the territorial period does not satisfy the residence of the Statute. Since the appellate court has sustained a new statutory “construction”, will the Attorney General cancel the certificate of citizenship “illegally” issued to illegitimate children born in the Philippines since 1912?

Within In re Mendiola [647 F. Supp. 839 (S.D.N.Y 1986)], the originator of the chain of citizenship was a U.S. born great grandfather. All subsequent generations lived only in the Philippines, and all were granted certificates of citizenship. Will the Attorney General now apply the court-sanctioned “construction” and cancel certificates issued to the generations of Meniola’s?

Acquisition of birthright citizenship is retroactive to birth – the citizen is considered to have acquired citizenship at birth and to have always maintained that status, even if that status is not confirmed until adulthood. While there are conditions precedent, for some categories, conditions subsequent or concurrent such as the modern retention requirements, once granted, there is no second class citizenship status recognized either under the constitution or in the statute.

Here, James was determined by the INS to be a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. He was administered and voluntarily took an oath of allegiance to the United States at the time of that determination, effectively renouncing his Philippines citizenship. He applied for and obtained a U.S. passport. Upon his last entry to the U.S., he was admitted as a U.S. citizen. The Court’s decision has rendered him stateless, a cruel and unusual punishment, unable to obtain passport to travel and has been deprived peace of mind from fears of deportation and separation from loved ones.

Current statute provides for the cancellation of a certificate of citizenship for those who “illegally” acquired citizenship at birth, but clearly states that cancellation of the certificate des not affect the underlying citizenship status of the person in whose name it was issued. There is absolutely no process for the removal of the citizenship, the nullification of the oath taken, or a return to former status, since from birth the status of the individual was that of the citizen.

The absence of a de-citizenship process and the express inclusion of the provision that cancellation of the certificates does not alter the underlying status is powerful evidence that James’s case should have been accorded the absolute scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Congress has had ample opportunity to correct this situation if it deemed it to be a defect. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1966 was a comprehensive overhaul of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but did not include a provision to correct this alleged “defect.” James contends that this is because it is no defect in law, but rather a clear message that birthright citizenship, once granted, is not to be taken away.

It is clear that the court-sanctioned “construction” of Revised Statutes §1993 is flawed. Yet, the Supreme Court has declined to exercise its power of judicial review and takes issue with the narrow and myopic reading the appellate court gave to Revised Statutes §1993 in its adoption of the position of the Attorney General. As a result, the agency can now rightly lay claim to the enviable power to wield the unrestrained sword of bias and prejudice – today to interpret in favor, tomorrow, to interpret against. The many-horned hydra of arbitrariness, capriciousness and unbridled discretion shall rear its ugly head.

Water Blues

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) provides water from the Umiray, Angat and Ipo river basins to Metro Manila’s private concessionaires Manila Water Co. Inc. and Maynilad Water Services Inc. for distribution. However, these water sources can barely meet current demand, let alone connect additional customers.

The proposed P47.93-billion Laiban Dam project is intended to supply 1,900 million liters a day (MLD), or 22 cubic meters a second, of water and address an existing gap of 1,122 MLD in the Metro Manila water supply.

The dam will be built at the Kaliwa River in Tanay, in Rizal province, in the central and southwestern parts of the Sierra Madre mountain range. It is to be an alternative to the Angat and the Ipo dams, and is expected to operate in 2016.

Enough water by 2016? Don’t get your hopes up.

Current census projection shows there will be 88.7 million Filipinos by year’s end. That number can double in less than 20 years. We’re back to square one by 2016.

Presently, there is water rationing in Parañaque. When Maynilad says that they are ready to supply water to 10,000 households in BF Homes, this means further rationing. Equal sufferance?

The developer allowed the village’s Maynilad connection to be cut off by refusing to pay its bills amounting to P5 million and also by refusing to allow the homeowners direct connection to Maynilad which would have been a cheaper option for homeowners instead of buying water in bulk and reselling it to the homeowners at a profit.

The wells in the subdivision have dried up when the United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) filed a case asking, among others, the Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to order the developer to provide 24-hour water supply to homeowners. Jurisdictional resolution took all of nine (9) years from the time the case was filed on July 5, 1995.

On September 27, 2005, the HLURB ordered “respondents BF Homes, Inc. and Philippine Waterworks Construction Corporation (PWCC) to provide a 24-hour water supply to the entire subdivision failing which to turn over the operation of the water system in the subdivision to the United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc.”

Unfortunately, the developer has taken steps to appeal that decision. With or without the foregoing decision, the provisions of Presidential Decree 1345 can be properly applied, the Association wrote the MWSS last February 28, 2006. The decree provides:

“MWSS, shall upon petition of the Homeowners Association … take over the operation and maintenance of centralized water systems of residential subdivisions within its territorial jurisdiction …” and “shall thereafter cause the system to operate at the desired level … The cost to render the system operable shall be chargeable to the subdivision owner/developer provided that the provision of adequate water supply has been specified or implied in the contract of sale or other forms used in offering the housing units within the project for sale. Otherwise, the cost to make the system operational shall be chargeable to the homeowners of the subdivision.”

By choice, Maynilad prefers to supply to PWCC instead of direct connection to homeowners so that it can charge the higher commercial rate instead of the cheaper residential rate and avoid system maintenance services. On the other hand, PWCC profits by reselling the water above its acquisition costs and operating expenses without the expense of drilling more water wells.

Obviously, the direct connection option by the enclaves suggested by Maynilad and city hall officials will not prosper at all. Why the empowered MWSS does not “take over the operation and maintenance” of BF Homes water system under the circumstances is anybody’s guess.

In the last election, subdivisions homeowners, comprising the majority of electorate in Parañaque, had the opportunity to elect a non-politician candidate who promised to provide water within his term of office if elected. He was willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, by posting a P50 million performance bond once elected. If we are in this mess, it’s because the majority elected those who, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of the responsibility of providing basic necessities of their constituents.

When will water become available to BF homeowners on “equal sufferance” basis is best summed up by Maynilad’s demand to BF Homes water administrator: Pay up.

BF Homes Holdup, Break-in

About two weeks ago, there was another daylight holdup in BF Homes. Carlo Reyes, a hair saloon beside Union Bank, near Bacolod Chicken House (where the brother’s mayor was earlier held up) along President’s Avenue, BF Homes, was held up by 2 men on a motor cycle. They stuffed in a sack the hand bags and goodies of the ladies and took off in one motor cycle. How about that!

The present dispensation has destroyed the residential character of our neighborhood, forcibly opened our gates to horrendous outsider traffic and exposed residents to criminal elements, and illegally constructed government facilities using government funds on a private property (Aguirre Park), including a covered tennis court.

The commercialization of the subdivision, we are told, is progress, and instead of tossing the blame to the local government for the destruction of the residential character of the subdivision, residents should be grateful.

And why not, considering that even within BF Homes, residents cannot seem to put their acts together on the subject of keeping the subdivision safe for their families whose welfare has been shoved aside by a persistent minority.

Let me put it this way: When a storm is coming, you close all your windows. After the storm and you see the mess, you don’t ask why. You ask who opened windows.

The following is a slightly edited email, with a request for dissemination to residents and visitors of BF Homes Subdivision in Parañaque:

At around 9pm last night, we (well, our car) were the victims of “glass breakers”.

We were parked along the main street of BF Homes (President’s Avenue) -- a parking lot in front of a closed luxury car shop right beside the entrance to Tahanan Village. A lamp post illuminated the area and it was only a few steps to the guard house. And at 9pm, it was still a very busy street. So without giving it another thought, we locked the car and crossed the street to where we were having dinner.

We came back an hour later to find our left rear window open—at least, that’s what I thought. At closer inspection we found that the window had actually been smashed. And they did a pretty good job of it—the whole glass lay inside the car unbroken, with only shattered bits around it. Maybe that’s why they didn’t trip the alarm. They knew what they were doing, as we were later told by the police that it wasn’t the first time this happened in the area.

Anyway, we realized that a bag in the back seat caught their attention. It wasn’t a flashy one, and we thought our car was darkly tinted enough to hide what was inside. Apparently we were wrong. The bag contained some cash, credit cards, atm cards, a phone, and house keys. So we immediately got on the phone to have the cards and phone line cut, and all that. We put a makeshift window made of dark plastic so that we could at least drive home without inhaling the polluted air of South Super Highway.

And we thanked God that it was just a bag that was stolen, not our entire car...that it was just a window that was smashed, and not us. We’ve all heard these stories before and have been warned, especially about leaving your laptops in cars, or when going to particularly dangerous areas. But when it happens to you, inside a busy, well-lit area inside a private subdivision, with only a simple bag as the trigger, you can’t help but think, what’s the world coming to? Hay.”

Bottom line—please, please be extra careful, guys. No matter where you go, or what you have, these people will always find a way to get what they want (or need—I keep telling myself that I hope whoever did it was really in dire need na lang). Otherwise, sana kainin sila ng mga malalaking pulang langgam. Don’t give them the opportunity.