Quiz on Magsaysay park deal is far from over
THE debate over the controversial Magsaysay Park deal will continue in the city council and in other venues even if the resolution granting authority to Mayor Benjamin Lim to sign a contract with Metrostate Realty Corporation had already been approved by a vote of 8-3 during a special session last December 19.
This was gleaned from the press statement issued by Councilor Alex de Venecia who was absent during the December 19 special session, saying he was not informed officially and in time for the special session.
Councilors Farah Decano, Jose Netu Tamayo and Michael Fernandez were the only ones who voted ‘ no’ to the draft resolution sponsored by Councilors Nicanor Aquino and Vlad Mata. Both Decano and Tamayo are lawyers while Fernandez is a graduating law student. (Note: The PUNCH erred when it reported last week that Fernandez abstained).
Tamayo had also complained of not having received any notice about the holding of a special session last December 19 but arrived nonetheless but could not fully manifest his objection to the resolution.
De Venecia said had he been officially informed of the special session, he could have attended and questioned the legality of the conversion of the Magsaysay Park into a commercial complex, believing that parks and plazas are beyond the commerce of man based on jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in one of its landmark decisions.
He expressed the view that conversion is not possible unless the city can secure an exemption from the Office of the President and/or from Congress of the Philippines or the national government agencies that handle the aspect of conversion of parks for commercial purposes.
De Venecia and his colleagues in the so-called conscience bloc are not alone in questioning the hasty approval of the controversial resolution.
In his blog (http://alvin.prepys.com), Vice Mayor and SP presiding officer Alvin Fernandez also raised some issues in the December 19 special session which he said Councilor Teofilo Guadiz III failed to address and explain.
It was Guadiz who submitted a committee report on the questioned bidding conducted by the Special Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee.
The vice mayor also pointed out that “In a twist of events, Councilor Guadiz who was vehemently objecting to the manner of the bidding and award to Metrostate in the previous sessions of the Sanggunian became the lead man in defending Metrostate as the winning bidder of the Magsaysay Park BOT project”.
Defending the bid, Guadiz said that Mayor Lim decided to bid the Magsaysay Park after getting a cue from a Sangguniang Panlungsod resolution pinpointing the Magsaysay Park as a Tourism Park and adopting there from the so-called Magsaysay Redevelopment Plan.
Fernandez also disagreed with Guadiz’s position that Metrostate, the joint venture of S & F Realty Corporation and LXS Builders and Suppliers, bided for the Magsaysay project and thus pre-qualified, qualified and participated in the bidding.
The vice mayor maintained that records in his possession indicate that the Metrostate was merely the recipient of the rights of S&F and LXS, its parents, when they issued a deed of undertaking transferring their rights to Metrostate since the latter was only registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October this year when in fact the bidding process already started last year.
During the special session, Guadiz angrily asserted Metrostate is a qualified bidder, saying the company assumed all the rights thru what he called “subrogation” from S & F and LXS.
Guadiz and seven other councilors rejected the amendment proposed to be inserted by Tamayo and Decano that sought to delete the part of the resolution pinpointing Metrostate as the winning bidder of the BOT project.
The eight councilors also rejected another insertion proposed by Tamayo and Decano with a proviso requiring that “the winning bidder must have participated in the prequalification, qualification and bidding process as per requirement of Law.”
The resolution was approved despite a letter from the Regional Development Council secretariat dated December 14, 2006 which confirmed that it was only the RDC secretariat that prepared Resolution No. 66 on November 28, 2006, and was not ratified by the Executive Committee.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
