CEBU, Philippines - Local government executives who are exerting extra efforts to generate and mobilize local resources to fund operations and local initiatives should be commended. At least, they are doing what the local government code mandated them to do, “to establish public economic enterprises to generate local resources aside from traditional sources of funds – the Internal Revenue Allotment”.
The Province of Cebu and the Cities of Cebu and Mandaue have been very successful in this respect. Among others, the Province of Cebu through then Gov. Lito Osmeña had a successful joint venture with the Ayalas in establishing the now revered Cebu Asiatown IT Park. Cebu City has its North Reclamation Area (NRA) and South Road Properties (SRP) and Mandaue City has its own Reclamation Area too.
While these undertakings are proven successes, a few other projects are riddled with controversies. For one, the primarily underwater Balili property acquisition of the Cebu Capitol is at fever-pitch on account of an allegedly unauthorized development in the site.
To recall, in August 20, 2012, this column featured this seemingly clandestine operation. Then, his back against the wall, the Cebu provincial engineer stressed that what was undertaken (land fill activities) in the controversial Balili property was restoration, not reclamation.
Setting aside momentarily the supposed objective of this undertaking, let us understand better the differences between reclamation and restoration. Reclamation, sometimes referred to as land fill (a landfill is different), is the practice or undertaking that gives rise to a dry land from a body of water like sea or ocean, lakes or riverbeds. In effect, it alters obtaining ecosystem for other uses (industrial, commercial, residential, etc.) like the Cebu City’s NRA and SRP as well as Mandaue City’s Reclamation Area.
On the other hand, restoration is exactly the opposite of reclamation in that it restores the ecosystem of a site to its natural or original landscape. These are sites that were altered due to man’s abuses or human’s recklessness like pollution, deforestation or irresponsible mining activities. This can also include the process of revitalizing a site that has suffered from environmental degradation like those by natural causes. These are activities/incidents that rendered sites like lands, seas, rivers or lakes no longer usable as nature intended them to be.
Based on the aforementioned, where does the recent development at the Balili property fall? If it is restoration as alleged, then we should know how nature designed it originally. Undeniably, it was part of the open sea. Then, they built some dikes and made the site into a fishpond. Therefore, if this is restoration, they should tear down the dikes and make the entire Balili property part of the open sea again. Apparently, however, they are converting these wet ponds into dry land. Thus, this activity is, certainly, reclamation not restoration. It’s a no-brainer.
But why in heaven’s name do they call this activity a restoration? The answer is very simple and the applicable law on reclamation can help us sort this out. As provided for by such law, sites that are to be reclaimed are still untitled. Logically, therefore (despite doing reclamation activities), since the Balili property is already titled, then, it can’t be a subject for reclamation. Understandably, without any recourse, the provincial capitol called it restoration.
Setting aside nomenclatures, however, we must not forget the fact that this development was initially done in August, allegedly, under cover of darkness. Knowing fully well Gov. Gwen Garcia’s penchant for unparalleled media exposure and propensity of owning her initiated projects, the ever keen Cebuanos are beginning to suspect that the blinding darkness at night was used to either protect one’s devious interest or hide a culprit’s underhanded tactics.
Fortunately for us, Cebuanos, however, the Balili property is just too big to hide.
For your comments and suggestions, please email to foabalos@yahoo.com. (FREEMAN)