Why are they dumbfounded, those who wonder why it’s only now that the reclamation at the boulevard is a major controversy roiling the City?
They cite other past projects that, they claim, were of the same nature as the on-going one at the boulevard, but why was there no outcry like the one now?
To me, those past jobs weren’t really like this one, and compared to this one, they had an urgent need. They improved the appearance, and enhanced the value of their areas (except the dumpsite once it had reached way over its maximum capacity, a pressing problem approaching epic proportions, if not already, that ought to be the No. 1 priority of the present administration).
In contrast, many feel that the reclamation projects at the boulevard aren’t really a pressing need but more of a vanity thing, and like all vanity things, mainly for outside appearances. So, why the furor now? Consider how the whole business has been managed:
At first, we were curious. Then curiouser and curiouser, as we say.
But no one could explain all that activity–the dumping, heaping of sand, gravel, rocks, huge boulders in the area; setting up barriers, bringing in construction machinery and equipment, rendering an unsightly disarray to the boulevard’s look.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Then we were alarmed. Why, what? More questions, murmurs, grumblings, frustration at no public explanation. Could it be… reclamation, that contentious issue that also disrupted the lives of Dumagueteños in the second half of the 1990s when the Philippine Ports Authority wanted to reclaim 1.3 hectares infront of Silliman University, which plans had to be abandoned in the end?
Still no official explanation, but small fires of discontent had been lit. For months, a year, they smoldered.
Then came the Cease and Desist order from the Philippine Reclamation Authority. And someone poured oil on the fire with intemperate and insulting remarks, painted with a broad brush those who dared to question the boulevard project as “pseudo urban planners,” “pseudo environmentalists,” “pseudo journalists,” “sore losers,” and “peddlers of snake oil.” (MetroPost, June 23, 2019)
Provoked that our motives and our integrity were being challenged, in response I pointed out, among other things, the irony in that last affront: We who dared to raise questions were not the “peddlers of snake oil” but those who worked in secrecy and deception.
And now I am rebuked with an implied threat: “But to perch one’s self onto a higher moral ground, and accuse the Mayor of dishonesty, secrecy, duplicity, and deviousness–just because you did not get what you want, nor read RA 1899 and RA 5797 expressly authorizing local government units like Dumaguete not only to undertake reclamation of their foreshore lot–is a serious legal matter.” (MetroPost, July 7, 2019)
Ah, yes, Makiha ka! (You can be sued!) Indeed, Makiha unya ta (We may be sued) keeps most people from speaking out, discourages dissent, and stifles the honest exchange and discussion of ideas and opinions. It’s an easy tool to intimidate the timid. So now, am I supposed to quake in my shorts? Madahan!
True, I have not read “RA 1899 and RA 5797,” but even if I had, prudence would have raised a question: Even if LGUs were authorized to reclaim foreshore lands, etc., does that mean that they do not have to secure environmental permits at all?
I’m not a lawyer, nor privileged to consult with lawyers, so I operate mainly by common sense. If a homeowner has the right to cut down trees on his property but has to secure a permit first, why not an LGU for a much larger, major project with a far-reaching effect on the environment?
It’s the height of hubris for anyone to be so sure that his/her interpretation of the law is the only correct one. (And it’s the height of hubris to think that you’re the only one who knows what’s good for a place and people, and to ignore the need to give them a truthful explanation when they raise questions and concerns.)
Advocates of the reclamation project have gone to great lengths now to redundantly explain their learní¨d lawyerly interpretation of RA 1899 and RA 5797. (If they had shared this information with us earlier–along with the nature and purpose of the project–when we were asking questions, the present disagreeable situation would probably have been avoided, nipped in the bud.)
But, as Atty. Golda S. Benjamin states in her Coffee and Conversations column, there may be another way of interpreting the law in this case: “The laws giving LGUs the power to initiate reclamation projects did not remove PRA’s approval powers. Neither did it remove the need to comply with requirements of the DENR, such as the environmental clearance.” (MetroPost, July 7, 2019)
So now because of an official Cease and Desist order from PRA, the stoppage of that project to reclaim 1.7 hectares (although it may be temporary) is an embarrassment, a self-inflicted problem.
Those who know me know that it’s not in my nature to place myself on a “higher moral ground” or on any higher ground for that matter, unlike some who condescendingly and sneeringly hurl insults at those they regard as inferior to themselves. I used the words in question because I was provoked by the spiteful, malicious characterization of us in the first place.
I was careful not to single out or name the Mayor in person, but said “the honorable officials/movers at City Hall,” meaning them as a collective body responsible for the overall collective behavior of working in secrecy, and ignoring their constituents’ need for information.
So when their explanation finally came out just three weeks-or-so ago about the real nature and purpose of the reclamation, can you blame me for not thinking “dishonesty, secrecy, duplicity, deviousness”?
I have nothing personal against Mayor Remollo. (I voted for him, and when my sister and I congratulated him on his victory in the 2016 elections, he called us his “favorite twins”– not anymore, wink, wink). I don’t really know him personally that well, but it’s common knowledge that he’s approachable, easy to talk to, kind, opens his home to the public (he hosted the Silliman University National Writers Workshop this summer, an event I was unable to attend), and generously helps those in need (I personally know some of the recipients of his compassion and generosity).
But these have nothing to do with our concerns and questions. My comments weren’t directed at him personally, but at the frustrating conduct of his administration. I’m sorry, but with command responsibility, he has to own that.
Sadly, he has disappointed many of us who worry about reclamation, and just needed to be told the truth about what was being done to our boulevard area.
We expect our public officials not to regard those who raise questions as just political noise, “noisy alarmists” who should be ignored; then stubbornly move ahead with their intentions, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
It does them no good to be thin-skinned. Grumblings, doubts, questions, hurtful comments, insults from the public are a given, they go with the territory. Otherwise, they shouldn’t enter the kitchen where things are cooked up, and unexpectedly dropped onto their plates. They should avoid situations that elicit anger, that support or promote divisiveness, but should aim for consensus.
Wise leaders realize when the actions and public pronouncements of even well-meaning friends can do them more harm than good. With friends like them, they have no need for enemies.
Wise leaders should be discerning, and honest enough to recognize when these drumbeaters, apologists, and alter egos are toxic when they continue to stoke the fires of discontent with hurtful accusations, taunts, mockery: “covetous,” “impatient and noisy,” “Shut up or pack up,” “good riddance, and don’t make the City your guinea pig” (ironic because in City Hall’s full embracing and forceful implementation of the Master Plan, it’s making the City a “guinea pig” of sorts); “Bato-bato sa langit, ang tamaan ‘wag magalit” (ironic because someone who meant to mock us is now deeply-perturbed, flustered, rattled, nah nah nah nah nah nah! Bato-bato sa langit, ang ma-igo ayg kasuko). You see, I can also play the game, and can be immature and petty.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
But this bickering situation is a serious matter. It’s time for sobriety and civility, to sit down and reason together. I have no appetite to prolong this distasteful public discourse that I was provoked into joining. I have said my say, people know what I think and where I stand. I’m ready to move on, continue with the writing projects that give me pleasure and satisfaction.
But as a prominent environmentalist (not pseudo) reminds us: “Environmentalism is a civic duty,” so I will continue to be watchful and vigilant about goings-on that concern us and our City.
As to that heads-up of the Mayor “to integrate his shoreline protection agenda with open space, underground utilities, and a wastewater treatment facility to make the boulevard sanitary and the sea swimmable again” (MetroPost, July 7, 2019), I hope the more pressing problem of our outgrown garbage dump will be attended to and solved first.
I wish the best for the Mayor and his administration, and hope they don’t belittle and ignore the concerns of their constituents, but respect and seriously consider them in making their decisions.