Banqueta ni Juan

It should have been done during the first energy crisis decades ago, when walking instead of riding a car was encouraged, but characteristically, we frittered away the momentum. Nonetheless, even without an energy crisis but for even stronger reasons it should be done! I am referring to the clearing of sidewalks by MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando for the full use of moving pedestrians – for the public.

First, sidewalks are for all human beings no matter from what part of the Philippines or this world or another world. More particularly, they are for moving pedestrians, except for designated bus stops where prospective bus riders may stand in wait, hopefully in a line – as they do in other civilized countries.

Second, sidewalks are for walking and not for the use of pushcarts, merchandise stands or counters, traffic officer pedestals, parking stanchions or blocks, or bicycles. They are not for demonstrating or striking labor groups and employees. With even less reason are sidewalks for wheeled vehicles, whether for passage or for parking, except for transitory use, e.g., a driveway.

Third, national or local law should prescribe, if it does not, the appropriate width of the sidewalk, and I fully agree with Chairman Fernando that, in principle, sidewalks should be clear of ALL obstructions TWENTY FOUR HOURS a day, SEVEN DAYS a week.

Fourth, sidewalks should be designed, constructed and maintained to be safe for pedestrians. The liability of the lot owners and of the municipality for the construction, maintenance and keeping of sidewalks safe for pedestrians should be established by law.

Fifth, not even public utilties should be permitted to degrade or negate the availability of the full width of the sidewalk or of the safety of a pedestrian on the sidewalk.

The not-so-obvious yet logical premise of Chairman Fernando’s sidewalk program is that the sidewalk "issue" is truly a microcosm of the problems of our country. Thus, if the sidewalk problem is solved, then we may indeed hope that many other national problems can be solved, especially those arising from our perverse attitudes toward public property.

Clearing the sidewalks for the use of pedestrians is not anti-poor. The majority of those using the sidewalks are not the rich! Poverty is a totally irrelevant issue here. The sidewalks are being cleared for the public – the poor, the rich, the middleclass.

The defenders of sidewalk vendors argue that the livelihood of very poor people is at stake. This is the same reason used for squatting on private or public land, for dynamite fishing and illegal logging, for throwing garbage into or along the banks of streams and rivers, for the small scale mining in Mt. Diwalwal which has so damaged the environment. The inevitable conclusion of such argument is that it is all right to destroy, pollute or appropriate public resources to preserve the livelihood of transgressors.

Besides the sidewalk vendors, there are also the not-so-poor who obstruct sidewalks with parked vehicles that force the pedestrian on to the dangers of the street; with Meralco electric poles in the middle of the sidewalk and with even more menacing anchor cables, with potted plants and rock gardens which landscapers put across the sidewalk, with ropes strung up by security guards to ward off vehicles from parking in their amo’s area; with professional and commercial signboards; finally, with armored trucks and their security detail that pre-empt the unhampered use of the sidewalk, however temporarily.

Annually, architects and engineers proclaim their accomplishments in newspaper ads. But are they not also to blame, besides the owners-clients for whom they design and construct buildings and facilities, for their utter disregard for the public good? Can not these technical men – all duly qualified! – design a proper sidewalk for the entire block and specify for later builders what design parameters to follow? Why must walking on a sidewalk be like a ballet performance or even a game of piko? Why not ban steps altogether and insist, instead, that any length of sidewalk from street corner to street corner should be stepless and have only one level surface, with very minor concessions to terrain (as in Baguio City)? Why must the sidewalk elevation follow the level of the building's ground floor or parking area?

A good example of how not to build a sidewalk can be found along Jupiter Street from Zodiac Street to the Makati cemetery – an area which shows the imbecility, or at least the lack of civility, of our architects and engineers, both in government and in private practice. And the problems there have relatively little to do with sidewalk vendors. Even enclaves of the "rich and powerful" such as the residential and commercial villages in Makati – considered "model villages" mind you – exhibit the devil-may-care attitude of many architects and engineers toward anything beyond the property limits of their client. The pedestrians are required to adjust to the sidewalk, not the sidewalk to the convenience and safety of the pedestrian. Should we not also chastise the schools that graduated these types?

In fact, clearing the sidewalks for the public is a defining issue in the problem of graft and corruption in government. What belongs to the public belongs to the public. It does not belong to and is not for exploitation or for appropriation by the poor or by the rich or by any individual or group.

What is true of sidewalks is true of any public property above or on or under the ground. If the concept of an asset owned by or for the public good can be accepted by us Filipinos as sacred, then we shall have gone a long way to minimize graft and corruption in government. As a people, we, the poor and the rich and the still-struggling, must soon accept that certain things are not intended for private gain or advantage. Public weal, to be honored and preserved, goes beyond kith and kin, schoolmates and fraternities, civic clubs and officemates. And networking.

Several things may be objectionable in what Chairman Fernando says or in the way he executes his task, but his sidewalk-clearing program should not be attacked for its objective. He wants to enforce the law. He wants to return the sidewalk to the pedestrian. Who can possibly object to that?

That the poor should be helped earn a livelihood is laudable and necessary in a just society. But it should not be at the expense of public order and the exercise of the rights of the public. If Chairman Fernando succeeds, public order and discipline will have won. After the home, the sidewalk is the next best place to start reforming our society. Then we can go on to the streets and highways to clear them of construction and traffic anomalies.

And this would require reforming ourselves even more!