LATE last week we were able to get in touch with Mr. Julian Rodriguez III who confirmed to us that indeed they had an audience with Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan, with whom they submitted their voluminous documentation of the reasons why they are requesting for the re-alignment of the Samal Island-Davao City Connector Bridge. As stated by Mr. Rodriguez III, their family is not in any way against the implementation of the project as they believe in the positive impact the bridge will have on the island city’s economy. According to the same executive of the Rodriguez family-owned Paradise Island Resort, they told the DPWH top official that they are not even opposing the proposed alignment solely because of the possible loss or stop of the operation of their resort business. After all, they will be compensated by the government once the expropriation proceedings will be consummated.
Rather, according to Mr. Rodriguez, their opposition to the recommended alignment of the bridge as proposed in the feasibility study conducted by a Hong Kong-based consultancy firm and is the one adopted by government for implementation, is because the process with which the various requisites in the issuance of the go-signal for the start of the construction were mostly short-cut in violation of existing environment laws which the government itself caused to be passed by Congress.
Clearly, the position of the stakeholders averse to the proposed alignment is well-grounded considering that primordial to everything else it is still the welfare of a number of Samalenos that is at issue in addition to the certainty of environmental destruction that may set in once construction is started. And the Rodriguez-Lucas family who is spearheading the efforts to have the realignment accepted is referring to the so-called Paradise Reef adjacent to the resort that the said family has taken unto itself to be the care-taker for posterity.
According to Mr. Rodriguez III the DPWH top honcho promised them that he will keenly look into their position paper and do what is necessary to arrive at a possible win-win solution. The question now is whether or not the agency will still take time to look into the request for realignment given the fact that the project implementation has been delayed for a much longer period already?
For certain there is a potential new feasibility study to be conducted and changes in the bridge design should the request be acted favorably. Without doubt any additional activity undertaken and its corresponding cost will be factored into the final determination of the new total project budget. Hence, the possibility is that the DPWH will stick to the design and alignment that is at its hand now.
If only for this possible scenario it is our take that the aggrieved stakeholders must be ready to take their last card as well as to submit what they think is the best acceptable option they can take, even if grudgingly.
From the way we look at it, the government cannot anymore afford to further lose its face after years of making such a promise to connect the island city with the mainland. But if only to assuage the hurt on the feelings of those adversely affected stakeholders and compensate the damage it is likely to cause to businesses and the livelihood of a good number of people in that city, the DPWH must lay on the table all their planned mitigating measures for the environment and the loss of income to the disparaged families in the island. And the concerned agencies that will be tasked to implement the mitigating measures must prioritize engaging the services of the adversely affected individuals.
—oOo—
For some time we were once a broadcast anchorman and commentator. We were contemporaries with the late Jun Porras Pala and Ferdie Lintuan. Our difference is that the two not only lambast government officials but even private individuals who they thought to have committed disservice and damage to the community. On our part we stuck to commenting on activities or actuations of public figures. And we made sure that in every major issue we endeavored to get the side of the concerned individual or office.
Yes, we had our share of threats and intimidations especially on one issue which concerned public health. In bringing the issue to light it also affected those people having flourishing businesses at Times Beach then. But as the saying goes, since we ventured into the proverbial “kicking the tiger’s ass, we made sure we were ready with our plan against its teeth.” That was, we made our time on the air ready for their side and our ears to listen to them.
In other words fairness was our game and it worked.
As they say, one’s right ends where another’s right begins. It saves many working journalists from possible libel, and worst assassination by those who felt they are unfairly maligned.
