An Open Letter To The Honorable Councilors of Davao City
Barangay Ma-a Federation of Home Owners Associations, Inc.
c/o 3rd St. cor Trinidad Ave., Trinidad Greenhills Subdivision
Bugac, Ma-a, Davao City
Telefax (082) 244-0090
July 20, 2010
An open letter to the 16th Council of Davao City:
Pleadings re environmentally sensitive Shrine Hills
Thru: Vice Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte
Dear City Councilors,
Environmental greetings!
We are happy to notice that the new city administration of Mayor Inday Sara Duterte-Carpio and Vice-Mayor Rody Duterte have made it clear that environmental care in different forms (anti-illegal logging, eco-tourisms, etc.) is on top of their agenda. We, the BMFHOAI, very much share the care for the environment and therefore take this opportunity to inform you, as our incoming councilors, about what we stand for and what our advocacies are.
Our basic concern is the wellbeing of the people and families in the many communities and subdivisions in Ma-a and particularly along and near Ma-a Shrine Hills. Ma-a Shrine Hills is now increasingly the focus of new subdivision development plans by big developers, such as Positano (Senator Villar’s company) and Palm Grove West Phase 1 of the Consunji group.
Reality is that, as stated in the November 2009 letter of Dr. Sandra Catane of UP’s NIGS (National Institute for Geological Sciences) to then city councilor Leo Avila: “The rocks underlying the Shrine Hills are inherently unstable because they are made up of unconsolidated to weakly cemented sediments, soluble (limestones), and sediments unfavorably dipping away from slopes. … The sinkhole observed in the Positano area was formed due to dissolution of the underlying limestone. Evidence of landslides including debris fall, rock fall and creep are apparent in steep slopes bounding the Shrine Hill. These indicate that some parts of the hill are naturally unstable (…) Some of the slope cuts related to the road construction (by DMCI) are too steep for the type of material and, therefore, can be unstable.
These insights by Dr. Catane, based on an ocular survey, are not exceptional. Similar findings and conclusions were arrived at by DENR and MGB’s director Edilberto Arreza who affirms in a DENR Memorandum that the Shrine Hills slopes are “environmentally sensitive” and that “all developments therein must be strictly regulated”. “Specifically, the identified problem is susceptibility to erosion and mass movements (landslide/rockslide) that could be initiated/triggered by misguided human development activity.”
The memo of DENR goes on to list a number of 5 landslide occurrences in the area. To which we the Federation of Home Owners, want to add that (1) the damage caused by the mentioned landslides as listed in the memo is even only partial, and (2) that significantly more landslides and earth movements have happened over recent years. One of these landslides even killed a child which was crushed by a collapsed chapel wall. The most recent landslides involve Nacilla Village where tens of residents have been affected because of the heavy rains on July 17, 2010.
It is in this context that we, the BMFHOAI, have been advocating for the conduct of an independent comprehensive geo-hazard study of the entire Ma-a Shrine Hills before any further development in Ma-a Shrine Hills will be allowed and in order to come up with a land use zoning plan for the area. We are very appreciative that the 15th City Council made a resolution to have this independent study done in aid of legislation. It will be funded out of Supplemental Budget I of June 7, 2010 because it was seen as a valuable input in re-zoning of the hill. We hope that this study, which will be conducted by Dr. Catane and her team, will happen anytime soon.
In this context it is also useful to note that, while the MGB already conducted a Terrain Analysis of Davao City Watersheds, it did not include the Shrine Hills area. In addition a number of project specific studies were done as well: one by MGB in 2006 for DMC-UPDI with a general enumeration of the geo-hazards. Also an EGGAR was done by DMC-UPDI for Palm Grove West Phase I and also by Camella Homes for the Positano project. But again, none of them covered the whole of Shrine Hills. It shows that so far the approach to urban planning and development has been piecemeal and incidental rather than holistic and comprehensive. It is approach that tends to cater to the wishes of the developers without sufficiently considering the existing neighboring conditions and communities. It is an approach that looks at the situation in one area without considering the situation in neighboring sites. It is an approach that tends to focus quite narrowly on a few mitigating measures here and there while knowing that no mitigating measure is ever a foolproof guaranty against disasters.
We hope that this approach will change under the new city government, not only in Shrine Hills but in many parts of the city as well. Yes, indeed, you, as our incoming elected councilors, can go a long way in implementing certain developments that will also be your legacy to future generations.
In other words, what we need is to take a total view with regard to what is the most appropriate and sustainable use and classification that could be given to the Shrine Hills, considering all factors (social, ecological, economic,…etc). The comprehensiveness of the planned study is precisely what would make it different from the studies undertaken thus far. This does not mean to belittle the studies made, but only see them in their proper context. More is needed to be looked into than what the studies so far have covered.
Given the precarious situation of the Shrine Hills, but without wanting to pre-empt the findings and recommendations of the independent study, we, the Federation, have also been advocating that the area will be considered a “protected nature zone” which would have implications on the kinds of developments that can be initiated.
While land property rights are guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution, we are of the opinion that quite a number of other laws have a bearing as well on what is happening in Shrine Hills.
First is Presidential Decree 705, or the Revised Forestry Code of 1975, section 15 of which states that “No land of the public domain eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over shall be classified as alienable and disposable, nor any forest land fifty per cent (50%) in slope or over, as grazing land. Lands eighteen percent (18%) in slope or over which have already been declared as alienable and disposable shall be reverted to the classification of forest lands by the Department Head, to form part of the forest reserves, unless they are already covered by existing titles approved public land application, or actually occupied openly, continuously, adversely and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30) years as of the effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is qualified for a free patent under the Public Land Act: Provided, That said lands, which are not yet part of a well-established communities, shall be kept in a vegetative condition sufficient to prevent erosion and adverse effects on the lowlands and streams; Provided, further, That when public interest so requires, steps shall be taken to expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject public land application, or eject occupants thereof.”
Based on these provisions the status and plans for the land definitely raise a number of questions. And it is definitely not self-evident that subdivision development is the preferred option under the law, rather the contrary.
Second is Presidential Decree 957 which Rule I provides Minimum Design Standards for subdivisions: “Subdivision projects shall be located within suitable sites for housing and outside hazard prone areas and protection areas as provided for by pertinent laws. Critical Areas (e.g. areas subject to flooding, landslides and those with unstable soil) must be avoided. The site shall be stable enough to accommodate foundation load without excessive earth moving, grading, cutting and filling.” There are indeed strong perceptions that the identified sites for Positano and Palm Grove West do not fit the minimum design standards which the law stipulates.
Third is the provisions enshrined in the Local Government Code under Section 16, the General Welfare provision. This provision states that “Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.”
It is very clear that section 16 does not do away with the right of the owners to their property, but it does provide the legal basis for the local government unit to impose or promulgate certain limitations as to what owners can do with their land and this all in function of the general welfare which benefits all. Section 16 empowers the LGU to take proactive action. The “property rights of the landowners as guaranteed in the constitution” are, in other words, not absolute. What a landowner can or is allowed to do with his land must be guided by the general welfare.
Given the very widespread and general agreement that Ma-a Shrine Hills is susceptible to erosion and mass movements (landslide/rockslide) that could be initiated/triggered by misguided human development activity,” it is self-evident that based on Section 16 of the LGC the local government can take action. The action can include that the local government imposes certain limitations or defines the possible limited options on how the subdivision developers can develop their land. For instance, negotiating with the subdivision owners to develop their land into parks or protected nature zones or outdoor recreational facilities will surely enhance the general welfare.
We would also argue that a nature terrain in Ma-a could attract businesses and offices to set up shop down the slopes and environs. In fact, Davao City needs more green areas to keep on attracting businesses and be true to its claim of being among the most livable cities.
In this regard we also want to restate again what we, the Federation, see as our standpoint on responsible development:
We, the homeowners associations, stand for responsible development.
(1) It is a development that is environmentally friendly and even considers climate change realities.
(2) It is a development that is beneficial to the present generation but does not compromise the rights and interests of future generations.
(3) It is a development that is open and transparent and actively solicits the participation of all concerned citizens.
(4) It is finally a development that follows the spirit of the law, and not merely bureaucratic compliance, or worse, manipulation of the law for self-interest.
Respectfully Yours,
Norma T. Javellana, BMFHOAI President, Vice-Pres. Trinidad-Greenhills Subd.
Marianito Q. Amigleo, BMFHOAI Vice President, Pres. New Washington Village
Eng. Rizalyn L. Animo, BMFHOAI Secretary-Treausrer, Pres. Metroville Subd.
Teodorico T. Tinio, BMFHOAI Board Member, Pres. Dinaville Subd.
Eng. Lothar Tischer, BMFHOAI Member, Pres. Luzviminda Village
Jo Quianzon, Coordinator, BMFHOAI Environment Watch Committee (EWC)
Gerard Ghesquire, Assistant Coord. EWC
Stacey Baird, Reseracher EWC
Larry Tungpalan, Member EWC
Wilfredo Mosqueda, Member EWC
Cris Rañoa, Member EWC
Michelle Cordova, Member EWC