Sounds a novel mea­sure, but...


FI­NALLY an In­dige­nous

Peo­ple’s Per­ma­nent Rep­re­sen­ta­tive (IPMR) has been elected and af­firmed by the Na­tional Com­mis­sion for In­dige­nous Peo­ple (NCIP) as the Lu­mad mem­ber of the City Coun­cil of Davao.

With the se­lec­tion, the ex­tended term of Halila Suda­gar is fi­nally over. But the elec­tion of the new IPMR in the Sang­gu­ni­ang Pan­lung­sod of Davao City is not with­out con­tro­versy. Ear­lier there was one elected from barangay Biao Guianga. But the NCIP re­jected that nom­i­nee be­cause of ques­tions on her qual­i­fi­ca­tion as Lu­mad. Her claim of hav­ing a 25 per­cent blood of the Bagobo-Guian­gan-Klata tribe in her was not ac­cepted by the NCIP.

Thus, pend­ing res­o­lu­tion of the nom­i­nee’s case, Suda­gar was al­lowed to serve the City Coun­cil on hold-over ca­pac­ity. This de­spite the fact that she should have quit from her post when she filed her cer­tifi­cate of can­di­dacy for coun­cilor in the city’s se­cond district dur­ing the last lo­cal elec­tion.

How­ever, the sad note of the IPMR con­test is that the ear­lier win­ner in the elec­tion con­ducted by lead­ers of the dif­fer­ent IP com­mu­ni­ties in Davao City has to bow out from the scene be­cause some­how, some peo­ple at the NCIP were not con­vinced of the doc­u­ments sup­port­ing her claim of Lu­mad tribe mem­ber­ship. And it ap­pears the court has sided with the NCIP in its de­ci­sion on the case filed by the for­mer nom­i­nee. It paved the way for the hold­ing of an­other elec­tion of a new IPMR for the City Coun­cil. The new one got the nod of the NCIP.

We hope the new IPMR will not any­more be has­sled with ques­tions of his le­git­i­macy as Lu­mad so he can pro­ceed to dis­pose his re­spon­si­bil­i­ties..


Last week we heard re­ports that a coun­cilor from the third district of Davao City was plan­ning to in­tro­duce an or­di­nance that will re­strict res­i­dents to ac­quire cars and other 4-wheeel mo­tor vehicles if they do not have a pri­vate park­ing space of their own.

We be­lieve the idea is novel and will give back to the pub­lic the side­walks of roads in res­i­den­tial ar­eas in­clud­ing sub­di­vi­sions. It will also re­duce pos­si­bil­i­ties of mis­un­der­stand­ing among peo­ple who feel their right over pub­lic places is de­nied by those who al­lo­cate the road­sides for their pri­vate park­ing use.

How­ever, we have doubts whether this or­di­nance, as­sum­ing that it will be passed by the lo­cal leg­isla­tive body, will suc­ceed in at­tain­ing its ob­jec­tives. We even be­lieve that many will ques­tion its con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity con­sid­er­ing that there is no na­tional law that should be the ba­sis for the craft­ing of an en­abling or­di­nance at the lo­cal gov­ern­ment level.

Be­sides, own­ers of busi­nesses deal­ing in the sale of ei­ther brand new or se­cond hand vehicles will surely cry foul. In fact our per­sonal take on the pro­posal is that such an or­di­nance is anti-busi­ness. It also in­fringes on the right of per­sons to en­joy con­ve­nience since it will pre­vent them from freely ac­quir­ing ve­hi­cle/s even if they can af­ford it.

Yes, with houses of­fered on house and lot pack­age deal by sub­di­vi­sion de­vel­op­ers, the sizes of lots are al­ready so small that re­serv­ing a space for garage is not any­more fea­si­ble. And with the ex­or­bi­tant cost of land, pur­chas­ing big­ger home lot that will al­low pro­vi­sion for a garage space could al­ready cost a for­tune es­pe­cially for wage earn­ers paid only a lit­tle over what is re­quired to feed a fam­ily.

And how will such or­di­nance im­pact on the busi­nesses of mo­tor ve­hi­cle deal­ers in Davao City, more specif­i­cally those sell­ing se­cond hand or sur­plus units?

The Davao City Coun­cil prob­a­bly has to sus­pend is­suance or re­new­ing its per­mits to op­er­ate in the city. For how can these busi­nesses be able to sell their de­sired num­ber of units when the prospec­tive buy­ers are con­strained from ac­quir­ing vehicles for lack of garage space in­side their prop­erty?

It is on this as­pect that the pro­po­nent of the planned mea­sure has to en­sure sub­stan­tial study of its po­ten­tial reper­cus­sions. They have to make sure that all stake­hold­ers that stand to be af­fected by the pro­posed or­di­nance have to be con­sulted. Af­ter all, it is still the city’s econ­omy as well as peo­ple, that will suf­fer the con­se­quences of im­prop­erly thought-of mea­sure re­gard­less of its noble in­ten­tions.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.