Gwen ques­tions P1.2B Capi­tol project

The Freeman - - NEWS - Lor­raine Mitzi A. Am­brad, Staff Mem­ber —/ JMD

Cebu Third District Rep. Gwen­dolyn Gar­cia has ques­tioned the Capi­tol's al­leged in­sis­tence on con­struct­ing the pro­posed P1.2bil­lion, 20-story re­source build­ing de­spite the red flags raised by the Na­tional His­tor­i­cal Com­mis­sion of the Philip­pines (NHCP).

“Nganong pug­son “Why the hurry? man gyud de­spite NHCP's And what has hap­pened reser­va­tions? Tun­god ba kay to the Com­mis­sion's hapit na ang eleksyon? (Why rec­om­men­da­tions on the in­sist de­spite the reser­va­tions? de­sign? It is a P1.2-bil­lion Is it be­cause the elec­tions are project that is po­ten­tially fast-ap­proach­ing?),” Gar­cia in vi­o­la­tion of the laws on said in a state­ment. her­itage preser­va­tion within a de­clared her­itage site,” she added.

Gar­cia's re­marks came after the Bids and Awards Com­mit­tee last week gave the green light for WT Con­struc­tion to go on with the con­struc­tion after pass­ing the post-qual­i­fi­ca­tion process. Once the pa­pers are all set, the con­trac­tor may start de­mol­ish­ing the BAEX build­ing and be­gin the works on the new re­source build­ing.

To note, the Capi­tol was de­clared a Na­tional His­tor­i­cal Land­mark in 2008 while Gar­cia was still gov­er­nor.

Com­ment­ing on the orig­i­nal de­sign of the re­source cen­ter the provin­cial gov­ern­ment sub­mit­ted to the NHCP last year, the com­mis­sion rec­om­mended that any new devel­op­ment within the com­pound “be ar­ranged sym­met­ri­cally on both sides of the old Provin­cial Capi­tol Build­ing.”

The NHCP had specif­i­cally asked a new devel­op­ment plan from the Capi­tol.

NHCP chair­man Rene Es­calante ear­lier wrote to provin­cial ad­min­is­tra­tor Mark To­lentino re­mind­ing the lat­ter that the Cebu provin­cial gov­ern­ment is yet to send the her­itage agency a new devel­op­ment plan.

“Up to now, we have not re­ceived the new devel­op­ment plan that we re­quested . While we did not set a dead­line for such sub­mis­sion, we would ap­pre­ci­ate a re­ply to our let­ter, based on Sec­tion 5 of RA No 6713 (Code of Con­duct and Eth­i­cal Stan­dards for Pub­lic Of­fi­cials and Em­ploy­ees), which sets a pe­riod of fif­teen work­ing days to re­spond to let­ters, with the re­ply re­quired to con­tain the ac­tion taken on the re­quest,” Es­calante wrote in a let­ter dated Novem­ber 19.

“We are mak­ing this re­minder in light of a re­port that the Provin­cial Gov­ern­ment has pro­ceeded with the pub­lic bid­ding for the project. May we there­fore have an up­date on our re­quest as well as on the project,” Es­calante con­tin­ued.

But ac­cord­ing to To­lentino yes­ter­day, there is no need for the Capi­tol to present a new devel­op­ment plan as agreed in an ear­lier meet­ing with the NHCP.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.