PB ignores Pabling’s plea

The Cebu Provincial Board did not heed the request of former governor Pablo "Pabling" Garcia to reconsider its earlier decision to authorize Governor Hilario Davide III to enter into an agreement with the Cebu City government on the controversial 93-1 lots.

The PB instead referred properties that of the Cebu Garcia’s letter on the 93-1 City government's 16.42 land swap deal to the hectares. 3URYLQFLDO /HJDO 2I¿FH IRU Bacaltos said a staff of appropriate action. Garcia called him over the

PBMemberRaulBacaltos, SKRQH DQG DVNHG KLP WR ¿OH a lawyer by profession, said a motion for reconsideration their earlier decision granting over the granting of authority Davide authority to enter into to Davide. an agreement with the city Bacaltos said Garcia government on the 93-1 lots himself called PB Member was extensively deliberated on. Sun Shimura and asked the

“The valuation of the same. Shimura was an ally property has been thoroughly of the Garcia under the One discussed by this board Cebu Party prior to joining during several meetings, the National Unity Party sessions and caucuses,” he (NUP). VDLG GXULQJ WKHLU ¿UVW VHVVLRQ Bacaltos said while for this year yesterday. Garcia is questioning the

In a January 12, 2017 land swap deal now, he failed letter, Garcia asked members to do so during the term of his of the 14th Sangguniang daughter, former governor Panlalawigan to review and now Cebu third district the land swap agreement Representative Gwendolyn "carefully and judiciously" Garcia. to protect the best interest of “The land swap was the province. initially discussed during

Garcia called the the term of Gwen Garcia. agreement an "illegal" But since it is now Davide’s transaction, a "robbery in administration he is already broad daylight" and therefore questioning the transaction,” "grossly disadvantageous" to Bacaltos said. the province, which agreed Over 10 years ago, to swap its 32.4-hectare Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña and then governor Gwendolyn agreed to exchange properties. Under the deal, the city residents ZRXOG EH WKH RQH WR ¿QLVK the payment for the Capitolowned lots they occupy.

7KH GHDO ¿]]OHG RXW however, after then vice mayor Michael Rama and City Councilor Jocelyn Pesquera, who headed WKH FRPPLWWHH RQ ¿QDQFH that time, questioned WKH DJUHHPHQW ¿QGLQJ LW disadvantageous to Cebu City.

Years later, in a memorandum of understanding entered into during Rama’s term as mayor, the city agreed to pay P500 million cash and part with P1.3 billion worth of properties to purchase the 93-1 lots. This did not materialize.

Bacaltos said he had conferred with a Capitol consultant whether or not the city government can dispose its properties in favor of the provincial government.

“It is the patrimonial property of the city government, therefore it has the right to convey the property in favor of the province,” he said. He cited a 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate and lower courts’ decision in favor of the Cebu city government’s claim over the South Road Properties.

Under the MOA, 32.4 hectares, which constitute the remaining unpaid/unsold portions of lots and the corresponding rights and interest under Provincial Ordinance No. 93-1, shall be transferred to the city through exchange of properties, which included a 2.5-hectare lot at the SRP.

Garcia said the 2.5-hectare lot cannot be swapped because the city government has no authority yet to dispose of the properties.

He explained that the titles the City of Cebu possessed were granted under two special patents issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act.)

Under Section 60 of the Act, the city government "cannot alienate, encumber or dispose of the lots, except when authorized by Congress." CA No. 141, Garcia said, mirrors the legislative authority required in Section 56 of Act No. 2874.

He said the SC invoked the same provision in the landmark case of Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, G.R. No. 133250 dated May 6, 2003.