WE are not quite ready to believe this report about the owners of the property targeted as the
location of the Samal approach of the bridge connecting the island city to the Davao mainland.
We are referring to the report that the owners of the property, the Rodriguez-Lucas families, are
claiming they are now feeling the heat of what they call as harassment by the government together with
some persons representing the Chinese contractor firm. The harassment act, according to the report
happened some four days ago.
As we said we are not totally prepared to believe in the report. But knowing that the information was
sourced from a very credible law firm, we want to admit that there seems to be hardly any room to
doubt the authenticity of the claim. But whether or not the management of the resort was correct in its
interpretation of the conduct of those who claimed to be from the government agencies and the
contractor firm, we cannot be definite in our assumption.
On the other hand, the comportment of those who were charged of harassment in their approach
and dealing with the resort management is one that cannot be interpreted otherwise if they indeed
conducted unprofessionally. Hence the resort executives have every right to cry harassment and
intimidation.
According to the statement emanating from the law firm retained by the resort, the team of people
from the DPWH, DENR, and Local Government Unit (LGU) of Samal went to the resort not using the
normal gateway. That is, the mini pier where clients of Paradise Island Resort, Inc. disembarked and ride
on motorboats from and back to Davao City. They went there on board a private water craft allegedly
owned by a well-known businessman-politician landing right on the shallow waters of the resort’s
beachline.
The statement added that the management representative complained of the team’s apparent
disregard of courtesy that should have been accorded in doing official transaction with the resort
owners.
And what seemed to have further gotten the goat out of the owner’s representative was the
presence of armed security of the joint government agencies team. Thus, the statement added, the
management represented by Mr. Juli Rodriguez III, demanded that the firearms of the security escorts
be left in the guard house or they stay at the entrance only.
In the dialogue done after the government team was allowed inside the resort office, according to the
statement, the combined team told the management that the engineers would bore a hole to test the
solidity of the location where the bridge’s post will be erected. Mr. Rodriguez, according to the resort’s
retained law firm, refused permission because the team could not show any document related to the
resolution of their officially manifested objection to the use of their property. Rodriguez, added the
statement, claimed that there has been no expropriation proceeding started.
The government team’s response, the report added, was that the foreshore where the contractor’s
men were to conduct drilling is a government property after the resort owners’ lease was unilaterally
terminated because of non-payment of lease fee. So, they can’t be stopped from doing what they are
supposed to do in connection with the bridge’s construction.
Now here is the rub. Was it necessary for the government team to bring with it armed security
personnel? Is the Paradise Island Resort ever known to have notorious record of dealing with clients –
tourists or those having other official transactions with the estabkishmenbt? For the last many years of
its existence we haven’t heard of any notoriety whatsoever. Was it not flaunting bravado when instead
of using the normal entry route to the resort, the government representatives have to show it can do
whatever it wants if only to show the affected stakeholders that they have all what it takes to force their
objective?
On the question of ownership of the foreshore: There is no arguing that it belongs to the state. But
when it was leased to a private person or juridical entity, the government somehow “surrendered”
temporarily its rights over it for the duration of the foreshore lease if all the requirements are complied
with such us paying the necessary fees to government by the lessee.
The government representatives, according to the statement released by the law firm and affirmed
later by resort officials, insisted that the foreshore has reverted to government because the lessee
stopped paying the necessary fees since 2005. Is that so even without following certain processes?
Besides, could such omission be possibly done by the lessee when the lease is the life of the resort? It is
very unlikely.
A clarification made later by Mr. Rodriguez disclosed that the payment by the lessee as individual
was stopped because starting 2005 the resort was converted into a corporation which since that year
was already the one making the payments. And if Mr. Rodriguez presented the receipts of payments
since that year to the representatives from the government agencies, then all the more that there was
no need for lengthening the discussion between the parties.
On the other hand, had the government representatives presented official DENR records of no
payments by the lessee, then that would have ended the resort management’s protestation to the
planned boring on the designated spot in the shore area.
Meanwhile, it is our take that the bridge is a major boost to the IGaCoS social and economic
development. But we see it as equally important that a win-win solution has to be arrived at in the
current impasse. It is in this situation that dialogue plays an important role in settling conflicted issues
on the project.
The government cannot be faulted if it will insist in its position on the matter. After all its basis is
backed by science but which is not necessarily “ex-cathedra” of beyond fault. On the other hand the
affected stakeholders, more specifically the Rodriguez-Lucas-owned resort and others are also banking
on scientific findings as far as their pitch for environmental protection is concerned. The resort though,
is also harping on serious economic deprivation of its direct employees and those hundreds of families
getting their livelihood from their business transactions with the establishment.
Given this situation where so much is at stake; the sooner the disagreement is settled with everyone
benefitting even if it would mean some sacrifices have to be made by either of the parties involved, it is
our humble view that the issues conflicted upon must be laid on top of a non-hostile table and discussed
in the fairest manner. That way we are certain that a win-win solution can be arrived at to the
satisfaction of everyone.
