Preserving Baguio

LETTERS FROM THE AGNO

March Fianza

              I wish to be apologetic for dwelling on for so long and maybe for too much around issues on ancestral lands and “preserving” kunu what is left of our beloved Baguio. These are things that are important to me and for many others that I cannot just leave questions unanswered and let the topics dangle in the mind without stressing my point.  

Last week, a sit-down silent rally was organized, the purpose of which was to protest against the issuance of “spurious” ancestral lands titles that were issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, and the “preservation” of what is left of Baguio.

I thought that while that was a good move to examine unclear matters and misconceptions surrounding the much controversial issue on ancestral lands, the mass action could have served as venue to investigate in all honesty the righteousness of the matter at hand.

I sensed that the tenor behind the reason why the sit-down rally was being organized was quite misinforming as it bears ambiguous and indirect information that already makes conclusions in the mind of the public that the “issuance of ancestral lands titles” is the culprit in the destruction of the city, consequently making ancestral land claimants destructive.

I am certain that people who were invited to the sit-down rally already had the misinformation and misconception implanted in their minds that the issuance of an ancestral lands title over the lot where the historical Vallejo Hotel building is squatting on was spurious, before they went to attend.

But, if I were to assess the rights of the people involved in this squabble, we, as Baguio citizens have equal rights to own and preserve the historical Vallejo Hotel, the old Post Office building that is on a lot that has not been issued a CALT, as well as other historical sites. With or without a CALT, historical sites should be preserved. Not because it was leased by a government corporation to business entities that presently occupy the building that equal rights to the historical structure is unbalanced.

And by the way, the manner by which it was already occupied by them one morning when Baguio citizens woke up is something I also want to find out. Why and how was it leased? If the CALT over the land did not come up just like in the case of the Post Office building, would preservation of the Vallejo Hotel be foremost or secondary? Would a sit-down rally still be organized? These things haunt me.

I only wish to point out that honest to goodness actions for the preservation of what remains of Baguio are in order, not only for historical sites, but to include foremost our forests, streams and the general environment. Do we have excellent track record in protecting the environment? I think the city and its officialdom has not been up on its feet in as far as environment protection is concerned.

Proof of this is the unsolved squatting in forested areas whether these are public or private domains, the persistent cutting of trees by subdivision developers and universities, the continuous pollution of waterways because houses are allowed to build alongside, the unstoppable approval of Townsite Sales Applications or TSAs on every inch of Baguio and the lack of a strong will by the authorities to implement the rules they have crafted.

What has a legitimate ancestral land claim have to do with these problems? Why point fingers at others for your inefficiencies and remises? Ordinary citizens know that the one reason why we are confronted with a situation no one wants is due to the ineffectiveness of government to do what is right. And to make things most shocking, instead of stopping the approval of TSAs, a public official suggests that unvalidated ancestral land claims be converted and be disposed to the actual occupants. This encourages and legitimizes squatting.

Walking through South Drive, one will see beautifully constructed houses built alongside the road. Buildings were allowed in the area even while it is within Forbes Park. The city has not lifted a single finger to question the houses occupying the same park, but when an Ibaloi family filed its ancestral claim over the land in accordance with the provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act or IPRA, the city was quick to oppose such claim in the name of environmental “protection”. Is that fair?

The same is true with what happened at Gibraltar Road and the area behind the Teachers Camp that are within parcels of Forbes Park. These were forested but raped by land speculators who conspired with squatters. Instead of removing them from the area, the government just let them be and had the areas segregated from the technical boundaries of the forest park. Consequently, they became “legitimate” barangays.

On the other hand, there were ancestral lands that were transferred to private persons in the past while some sectors have been benefiting and are still benefiting from the sale, transfer and lease of lands that are rightfully owned by other individuals. There are also ancestral land claimants who are as unscrupulous as their clients and lawyers. But I know that there are only a handful of them as there are more authentic, honest and meek ancestral land claimants.

On the other hand, certain ancestral lands were donated for government use in the past. In this case, ancestral land claimants should be fair and should not claim back what has already been donated by their forefathers. For example, the lot where the Mansion and other government buildings now stand should be left alone. That is why ever since, I already agreed that PTV8 should be allowed to build behind the PIA cottage since according to records, the area has already been donated. By the way, what is taking DPWH so slow in constructing the government project?  

Ancestral land claimants have stories to tell. They know where and what lands belonged to them even long before the American carpet baggers declared this land as a city in the 1900s, a town site reservation and open for occupancy. However, not anyone of them could not move and build on their own land, even after the IPRA law was passed by no less than our own Baguio Boy Senator Juan Flavier and the congressmen of the Cordillera.

In fact, despite the presence of certificate titles issued to them during the American time, they did not go occupy their lands but instead, the titles served as instruments that protected their lands from intruders. But then, there were scoff laws who boasted the protection they get from city officials, and they were bolder than the Baguio natives. That is why we have squatters in all types of lands in Baguio.

 Now, let us talk about “preserving” what remains of Baguio. Is it correct to blame the oftenly misunderstood ancestral land claimant whose forefathers occupied the land before it was declared by the Americans as a city to fit their interests, or should the blame be on the ones who hold the reins of the city and their influential allies? – ozram.666@gmail.com