93-1 land swap decision stays, PB ignores Pabling’s plea

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu Provincial Board did not heed the request of former governor Pablo "Pabling" Garcia to reconsider its earlier decision to authorize Governor Hilario Davide III to enter into an agreement with the Cebu City government on the controversial 93-1 lots.

The PB instead referred Garcia’s letter on the 93-1 land swap deal to the Provincial Legal Office for appropriate action.

PB Member Raul Bacaltos, a lawyer by profession, said their earlier decision granting Davide authority to enter into an agreement with the city government on the 93-1 lots was extensively deliberated on.

“The valuation of the property has been thoroughly discussed by this board during several meetings, sessions and caucuses,” he said during their first session for this year yesterday.

In a January 12, 2017 letter, Garcia asked members of the 14th Sangguniang Panlalawigan to review the land swap agreement "carefully and judiciously" to protect the best interest of the province.

 Garcia called the agreement an "illegal" transaction, a "robbery in broad daylight" and therefore "grossly disadvantageous" to the province, which agreed to swap its 32.4-hectare properties that of the Cebu City government's 16.42 hectares.

Bacaltos said a staff of Garcia called him over the phone and asked him to file a motion for reconsideration over the granting of authority to Davide.

Bacaltos said Garcia himself called PB Member Sun Shimura and asked the same.  Shimura was an ally of the Garcia under the One Cebu Party prior to joining the National Unity Party (NUP).

Bacaltos said while Garcia is questioning the land swap deal now, he failed to do so during the term of his daughter, former governor and now Cebu third district Representative Gwendolyn Garcia.

“The land swap was initially discussed during the term of Gwen Garcia. But since it is now Davide’s administration he is already questioning the transaction,” Bacaltos said.

Over 10 years ago, Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña and then governor Gwendolyn agreed to exchange properties. Under the deal, the city residents would be the one to finish the payment for the Capitol-owned lots they occupy.

The deal fizzled out, however, after then vice mayor Michael Rama and City Councilor Jocelyn Pesquera, who headed the committee on finance that time, questioned the agreement, finding it disadvantageous to Cebu City.

Years later, in a memorandum of understanding entered into during Rama’s term as mayor, the city agreed to pay P500 million cash and part with P1.3 billion worth of properties to purchase the 93-1 lots. This did not materialize.

Bacaltos said he had conferred with a Capitol consultant whether or not the city government can dispose its properties in favor of the provincial government.

“It is the patrimonial property of the city government, therefore it has the right to convey the property in favor of the province,” he said. He cited a 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate and lower courts’ decision in favor of the Cebu city government’s claim over the South Road Properties.

Under the MOA, 32.4 hectares, which constitute the remaining unpaid/unsold portions of lots and the corresponding rights and interest under Provincial Ordinance No. 93-1, shall be transferred to the city through exchange of properties, which included a 2.5-hectare lot at the SRP.

Garcia said the 2.5-hectare lot cannot be swapped because the city government has no authority yet to dispose of the properties.

He explained that the titles the City of Cebu possessed were granted under two special patents issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act.)

Under Section 60 of the Act, the city government "cannot alienate, encumber or dispose of the lots, except when authorized by Congress." CA No. 141, Garcia said, mirrors the legislative authority required in Section 56 of Act No. 2874.

 He said the SC invoked the same provision in the landmark case of Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, G.R. No. 133250 dated May 6, 2003. (FREEMAN)