The P1.4-billion question

Whatever happened to the offer of Bob Sobrepeña-CJHDevCo to “donate” the P1.4 billion due to them from the BCDA in exchange for the government to respect the “third party rights” of investor residents in Camp John Hay?

When the Supreme Court decided on the case between the BCDA and CJHDevCo, the court ordered the return of properties to BCDA and refund of P1.4 billion to CJHDevCo.

In compliance with the ruling, CJHDevCo turned over the properties mentioned, believing that a smooth and orderly transition would take place. The BCDA, however, used the SC decision to instruct sheriffs and the police to immediately kick out resident-investors while padlocking their units.

As a result, those investor-residents have taken the matter to the courts to protect their “third party rights” as buyers, asserting they were not involved or party to the legal dispute between BCDA and CJHDevCo. BCDA continues to reject claims of third-party rights.

The irony is that instead of complying with the orders of the Supreme Court for the BCDA to refund the P1.4-billion payments made by CJHDevCo to the government, the BCDA allegedly delays the payment until all legal action or court cases filed by “third-party” claimants are resolved.

So, in the beginning the BCDA did not recognize “third party rights” but when it comes to the decision of the Supreme Court, the stumbling block for refund is the “third party claims.” The SC order and the lawsuits by third parties are two different legal matters.

While all that was heating up, Bob Sobrepeña wrote to President Bongbong Marcos and published the same letter in major newspapers, offering the P1.4 billion to the government in exchange for the government/BCDA to respect the third party rights.

In the simplest language, allow the investor-residents in Camp John Hay to have continued use of their units for the remaining period of their lease. Before the Supreme Court decision, the investor-residents used the units or leased them to hotel guests under the hotel management.

That arrangement was largely responsible for the survival of the two condotels, Forest Lodge and The Manor, during the COVID lockdown and has been a dependable source of guests post-COVID, adding to the condotel revenues.

Ignoring and rejecting the third party rights is equivalent to “biting your nose off to spite your face.” By accepting the P1.4 billion turnover from CJHDevCo, the government immediately has a windfall and profit at no cost. Allowing investor-residents to remain creates a built-in income generator.

What I’ve been told and which I find strange, is that President Bongbong Marcos has allegedly referred the P1.4-billion offer back to the BCDA to review! Why pass the buck to the very agency that was part of the problem? Who gave PBBM such weak advice?

Tyree Scott, a US labor leader and civil rights activist, once said: “You cannot just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution.” Albert Einstein famously said, “We cannot solve our problem with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

As expected, the BCDA allegedly advised the President against accepting the P1.4 billion. The question is, do they have something better to offer? Unless PBBM resolves the issue himself, the legal cases will continue even after his presidency.

It is unlikely that the BCDA can produce P1.4 billion out of nowhere and at no cost to the government. Why resist a peaceful compromise that comes with a windfall, considering the BCDA is not a hotel chain operator or property developer?

The growing suspicion is that the current management running the condotels are merely “babysitters” while a big corporation prepares a war chest in anticipation of the time when the BCDA offers the condotel properties up for bidding.

Assuming that is the case, the BCDA can simply state that whoever wins the bid must honor the “third party rights,” which is common in the sale of building and properties where there are current tenants.

Another option is to “renegotiate” the lease agreement of the investor-residents for a shorter period or offer the investor-residents a “time share program,” just like what many condotels in Baguio City and Boracay have been doing.

Under the scheme, the investor-residents still get to stay in the condotel facilities for a number of weeks or days a year instead of nothing. That would also mean business for the condotels instead of everybody going to court for the next three years if not more.

This compromise will be prudent for BCDA and court officials instead of legal cases piling up even after the term of PBBM. Many government appointees have ended up spending their own money for legal defense “in the performance of their jobs.”

By opting for the “time share program” and taking the P1.4-billion offer, the government gets to have its cake and eat it too. If not, the government walks into a highly disadvantageous situation that could result in graft cases.

There is also the strong possibility of being held in contempt of court for disobeying and delaying a decision of the Supreme Court that is final and executory.

While the government loses P1.4 billion, the future bidder/winner gets all the buildings, staff and customers for less than half of what it cost to build, set-up and have two condotels. Aside from the winning bidder, who stands to gain from this deal?

That is the P1.4-billion question!