On the Talisay City port, clarifications

Cebu Port Authority general manager VADM Edmundo C. Tan, PCG (Ret.) came out the other week with a rejoinder to a news item (not in this paper) about the status of the RORO facility at the port of Talisay City.

Among others the Vice Admiral stated that it was upon the directive of DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza that the Cebu Port authority prepared the plan, program of work and funding of the project. He also disclosed that the Cebu Port Commission approved the total cost of the project which amounted to P66,545,406.57.

It appears from this information that the initiative to undertake the project was that of DOTC and CPA. The truth, however, was that the project was conceptualized during the term of Eddie Gullas as mayor of the City of Talisay who served in such capacity from 2001 to 2003. In 2006 having been elected again as congressman of the 1st district of Cebu. Gullas continued pursuing the project by enlisting the participation of DOTC, headed at that time by Secretary Leandro Mendoza who used to be the Cebu provincial head of the Philippine Constabulary, and a close friend of the congressman.

Gullas' rationale for this project was that Talisay having been converted into a city needed a port, especially one with a RORO facility to accelerate its economic activities. Envisioned to function also as a fish port, the entire complex was expected to be a trading center for marine products, something similar to Pasil fish market, where fish traders from neighboring islands can transact business. The entire reclaimed area part of which supports the terminal covers 2.4 hectares or 24,000 square meters which at the current rate of P20,000 per square meter is worth almost half a billion pesos.

VADM Tan's statement on the funding of the project seems to convey the idea that the DOTC was the role source of such fund. The truth was that, as revealed by Gullas himself, the money that went into the construction of the port (and its vertical infrastructure) came from various sources. These were: Gullas' PDAF (P2.5 million), the PDAF of Senators Mar Roxas, Manuel Villar, Eduardo Angara, Nene Pimentel, the late Ramon Revilla Sr. and the late Rene Cayetano each contributing from P2 to P3 million. Other sources were: former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former cebu governor Gwen Garcia (P5million). The Philippine Ports Authority (not the Cebu Port Commission) allotted P67million while the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority extended a P15 million assistance. These, plus the P50 million from DOTC constituted the aggregate funds for the Talisay port.

Toward the middle part of his letter VADM Tan said: "The position of the Authority is that the Port of Talisay is a national port, owned by the Authority and is under its administration and control," and he cites R.A 7621 to support his statement,'

If the law says so, then let it be. But there's something unacceptable for a national agency's claim of ownership of a project for which the local government scratched and dug and labored hard to bring about. Besides, how can the national government take possession of a project located in a land owned by the local government without compensating the latter for its expenses?

That law ought to be amended because it discourages local initiatives insofar as undertaking socio-economic development projects is concerned. Moreover, it works against the exercise of local autonomy by provincial or city officials and foments over–centralization of power which is an autocratic and undemocratic practice.

To go back to the Talisay port problem, that city should be allowed to operate it although the CPA may exercise technical supervision over its operation. It is hoped that such arrangement can be arrived at between the City of Talisay and the Cebu Port Authority.