What is it about?

LETTERS FROM THE AGNO

March L. Fianza

When Uncle Joseph Z. of the Philippine Information Agency texted me about a peaceful sit-down 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 replied to his text message immediately that while that was a good move to once and for all ventilate the issue at hand, it is at the same time a venue to examine the righteousness of the ancestral land issue in the city, after all there is a law supporting such and there are more legitimate ancestral land claims than the illegitimate ones.

And so, I called Uncle Joseph and asked him, please inform the organizers of the sit-down protest assembly that was to be held in front of the old Casa Vallejo last Tuesday that the move must be fair to all, anyway the legitimate ancestral land claimants are the first victims, not the city, not any public official, and not any business establishment that has hidden interests other than financial gains.

Unfortunately in Baguio, the truth when it comes to ancestral lands is that there are sectors that have been benefiting and are still benefiting from the sale, transfer and lease of lands that are legitimately owned by other individuals. These must be looked into. How they were able to acquire tenurial control over these properties is of course under bureaucratic hocus-pocus channels with the assistance of enterprising people in government, not the NCIP.

Later that Monday evening, Facebook denizen Grace Bandoy texted me the same information earlier relayed to me that afternoon. Well, I gave her the same reply that I told Uncle Joseph. I also recall texting back that in order to be fair, maybe they can ask the organizers of the sit-down protest meeting to include in their debates the issues about squatting on public and private lands sponsored by some politicians we know, squatting on roads-right-of-ways or RROW, unstoppable issuances and sale of lands through the much-abused Townsite Sale Applications or TSAs, and the sneaky approval of segregation of large portions of Forbes Park in favor of squatter-occupants that were later sponsored in Congress  to become legitimate barangay units.

These could have been issues that were included in the program of the sit-down protest rally considering that squatting in the city is the root of all the problems that has put the city we all love in big, big mess. All these, if indeed the organizers who can be described as “well to do” are after a broader and more intelligent discussion of issues, and are really after preserving what is left of Baguio – its parks, its forests, its old buildings. 

By the way, where were they or where were we who claim to love Baguio when the old historic DBP building was demolished? Or when the old Post Office building was and is being leased to privately owned business stalls? Or when big and small chunks of the Forbes Park were being squatted on by rich and poor occupants? Or when SM was about to destroy a small forest to put up a parking lot? I know, we were somewhere doing private business and raking in money. We did not care because we are already rich, but this time that our business establishments are affected – we organize and spearhead a move in the guise of “preserving” what is left of Baguio.  

Please don’t get me wrong. I am for preserving what needs to be preserved. In the case of the old Vallejo Hotel building, the NCIP commission en banc has already issued a status quo order in time and that successfully delayed the implementation of the writ of possession issued by the agency. Hence, the commission en banc is now the body that will handle the case of the Certificate of Ancestral Land Title or CALT that was issued over the more than 2,100 square meter property claim of the heirs of Piraso.

Although, contrary to premature pronouncements made by the head of an agency attached with the DENR, I believe the CALT is not faulty. But the manner by which the writ of possession and the acquisition of an order to demolish the building did not go through the correct process and therefore, has to be re-examined before things go out of control, which nobody wants to happen.

But while we all want the building restored and preserved for its historical significance, the agency that leased the property to the present occupants are very much at fault and their statements now appear to be smokescreens to save face for what they did. An unsolicited proposal is for the present occupants to hold a dialog with the ancestral land claimants. Maybe this will soften the hearts of the latter and they can continue their businesses for as long as they want. This way, the old historical building will stay there forever.

It was a shaky week that was. But what brought us to it were the questions: Was the deal to have the historical property leased to private businessmen done surreptitiously that is now causing undue disadvantage to the legitimate ancestral land claimants? Did money change hands? Was there public bidding published before it was leased? Is it really “preserving” the historical building or “self-preservation and saving face?” What is it about, really? – ozram.666@gmail.com