LETTERS FROM THE AGNO

Public utilities / Murder of a thousand trees
MARCH L. FIANZA

Talks about abusing the city’s environment were about to turn into bad curses when finally SMIC buckled to admit its proposal to build three to four 13-storey Condotels on the mini forest beside the Baguio Convention Center.

Months after the 1990 earthquake, a multi-sectoral congress was held at Teachers’ Camp where it was agreed that sky rise buildings higher than four floors above the ground would no longer be constructed. In other words, the construction of a building higher than the top of a Pine tree may not be allowed.

That should have kept Baguio’s skyline just like the way it was. And I thought the sectoral summit was good because it would not be as easy now to acquire tree-cutting permits. But, it is the opposite. It seems easier to get tree-cutting permits for thousands of trees than for a single tree, especially for the rich applicant. Soon, the SM Condotels will come. Well, what can a small voice do to stop the rich and influential who can buy his way around?

Representatives of the proposed monstrous concrete edifices also confessed that more than 300 of around a thousand trees in the area will be killed. The 35-year old trees were planted by advocates of the “Green Revolution” program of then First Lady Imelda Marcos of the Ministry of Human Settlements.

Opposition to any tree-cutting activity has started to snowball with city council resolutions filed and supported by Baguio councilors Richard Carino, Fred Bagbagen, Isabelo ‘Poppo’ Cosalan Jr., Elaine Sembrano, Lulu Tabanda and others.

Earlier, former mayor Braulio Yaranon wrote the city council about the SM-GSIS deal, even saying that development permits were already issued to the proponents. If true, that means that some of our officials already knew of the plans of SM and GSIS, but they kept quiet. Were they intimidated or really innocent? Or were their mouths sealed with hundreds, maybe thousands of Ninoy’s bills?

Again, I see that some city dads who purport themselves as “lovers of the environment” are not lifting a finger against SM’s plan to murder more than 300 trees. Maybe future political interests are stopping them. But I do not believe that “SM provides big support to politicians in exchange for the help it gets for its business interests.”

In a meeting with the council, the proponents were told to construct their building somewhere outside the city. That request, if granted, would definitely satisfy one of the many goals of the BLIST concept ( Baguio , La Trinidad, Itogon, Sablan, Tuba) – decongestion. That would also be good if big schools were invited to build outside the city.

If the BLIST idea has an accompanying law, it should identify specific infrastructure for certain areas. The reason is that lands within specific zonal areas, just because these are privately-owned, should not be allowed to be developed in any manner the owner wants to have it done without considering the point of view of others. Also, tree-cutting permits should not be issued just because the trees to be cut stand inside a privately-owned lot.

Howl a protest against SM’s ‘declaration of war’ on more that 300 helpless and innocent Pine trees. Regardless of the number, whether SM murders 300, 500, a thousand or just one lonely tree, the weight of all the actions is the same. I wish to be around at a time when killing a single tree would be punishable by death.
***
The issue about soaring electricity rates in Metro Manila is no more than a corporate problem that should have involved only the stockholders, but it dragged everyone into it, including the mere consumer. Take a closer look and you will see the cosmetics. In contrast to what they want the consumers to see, the main actors are not really talking about how to lower the rates.

They are talking about their personal shares. They are talking about money. GSIS is talking about its percentage earnings; Meralco is explaining how much one gets while the government is talking about its royalties in electricity sales and its shares through VAT collections. These words do not come out of their mouths as the actors are civil but, the ringing is very clear in between every statement they make – just like the cash register.

Understandably, electric corporations are money-making ventures where “service is a priority,” second only to profit. But according to our lawmakers, there are surer ways to lower the rates. One, remove the government’s royalty-shares from sales because in this case power rates definitely increase and the burden brought by it is shouldered by non-business consumers. By the way, not even our lawmakers know where the royalties go.

Second, charges on systems losses from the Napocor, Transco and power producers should be scrapped gradually, because while that is allowed by the EPIRA and the Energy Regulatory Commission, consumers do not understand the logic in paying for something that they did not use. They also find it unfair that business establishments can easily pass to their customers their power consumption while residential power consumers pay their electrical bills out of their own pockets.

Wonder of all wonders it easily passed scrutiny in congress. At that time, there were rumors that big lobby money went around in the House for the passage of the EPIRA, systems loss payments included. When the time came to explain to the public the provision, there was no good reason other than saying “that is what the EPIRA says” and “we are only following what the law says.”

I think consumers are entitled to a better explanation of the law and why congress allowed the power business to collect payment for systems losses. If there is no rational and acceptable explanation to it, then it should be scrapped – because at the outset, it was already unreasonable.

Third, eliminating for good all the VAT charges on power sale would still be the best legislative amendment ever. It would be good to get rid of that, anyway ever since that was imposed, and despite the promise by government financial managers of an economic boom, I noticed that Filipinos fell even deeper into poverty. In general, the resultant effect of the VAT was contrary to what the proponents expected. Now they are not talking.

Now, before any self-styled “cooperative” moves to confuse local power consumers by using the Meralco issue, lawful electric cooperatives all over should take the cudgels of explaining that what is happening to Meralco is a corporate problem. Exactly, that could have happened to Beneco if its clients opted to register with the SEC or voted to convert to a stock-cooperative. Whatever, the two options are profit-oriented organizations. – marchfianza777@yahoo.com