By Tina Santos
Published on Page A20 of the December 2, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
A MANILA judge has denied the petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by Senators Alfredo Lim and Jamby Madrigal in connection with the city government’s plan to convert two Binondo schools into a housing and commercial area.
“The court finds no compelling reason to grant the TRO,” Judge Manuel Barrios of Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 54, said in his one-page order.
The judge noted that more than 70 percent of the construction work on the school buildings and other edifices in the area where the affected students of Jose Abad Santos High School (JASHS) and Rajah Soliman High School (RSHS) will be transferred had been finished.
Barrios added that the actual transfer of the schools and the eventual demolition of the old structures would take place when the school year ends.
Last week, Lim and Madrigal had filed a declaratory relief with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Mayor Lito Atienza, the city council and Megaworld Corporation.
The two senators asked the court to declare null and void a city council resolution authorizing Atienza to enter into an agreement evicting JASHS and RSHS from their present site in Binondo.
Another resolution, they added, would give way to Megaworld Corporation to convert the site to be vacated by the students “into a commercial complex, under the (guise) of a housing project condominium structure, (complete) with several business establishments.”
The city government had proposed the transfer of the affected students to a smaller property at the corner of Numancia and Urbiztondo Streets, in San Nicholas, also in Binondo, one kilometer away from the schools’ present site on La Chambre Street.
Lim said the transfer and conversion of the two schools would destroy the historical and cultural significance of the area, which used to be known as Cuartel Meisic.
http://newsinfo.inq7.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view_article.php?article_id=36001
Filed under: Philippine Daily Inquirer | 5 Comments
Overrated
No one begrudges Manny Pacquiao the cheers and a nice welcome party. He makes every Filipino proud by showing that talent and hard work make a formidable combination. His recent win was phenomenal. The problem is that he is being made out to be more than what he is, and he seems to allow it, nay, relish it. Pacquiao is a boxing champion—not a champion of the people, and certainly not a “champion for life.”
Engineers of this propaganda campaign are aware of Filipinos’ propensity to revere achievers or celebrities and confuse them with superheroes. Much too aware, actually, because they exploit this hero worship to the hilt if only to achieve their own ends.
It is thus sickening to hear of plans for a Pacquiao statue along Roxas Boulevard, or establishments renamed after the boxer. At the very least, these plans are premature: The man is still very much alive.
Political overtures are even more appalling. In the last elections, Pacquiao had been dim enough to endorse candidates as though he knew what it would take (apart from votes) to be a worthy elected official. Now he is actually being wooed to seek public office. He has not categorically said he would refuse any offers. Good grief.
Truth be told, the man has focused too much on his pursuit of excellence in his field that some vital areas in his person have been left untended. Take the talk that he gambles compulsively and spends his money as if there were no tomorrow. This, despite the fact that most of his fans live in squalor. He can be lured into signing contracts without fully comprehending their terms. He is also known to be overly fond of women. It would also be logical to assume he does not know anything about governance. Why wade into politics at all?
He has the power to bring the nation to a standstill—for the length of a bout. Remember how empty the streets were last Sunday afternoon? Unfortunately, there are many shameless entities eager to use his crowd-drawing power. Pacquiao would be equally shameless if he allowed himself to be used.
He always says he wants to do his country good. We advise him to keep his house in order, like any good citizen, and then do what he does best—boxing.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=editorial_nov25_2006
Filed under: Manila Standard | Leave a Comment
AS I SEE IT
By Neal Cruz
Published on Page A14 of the November 24, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
LAND development and shopping malls are now so profitable in the Philippines, especially in and around urban areas like Metro Manila, that those engaged in these businesses are snapping up huge tracts of land on which to build malls and develop housing projects. Nothing wrong there except that sometimes they use illegal and unethical means, including bribery and trickery, to get their hands on choice real property.
Because the easiest to bribe are government officials (national and local), we are now in danger of losing — that is, if we have not yet lost — huge tracts of public property, like school campuses, parks, military camps, etc. to land developers.
Government lots adjacent to developed shopping malls are the most at risk. Mall operators are casting covetous eyes on them to expand their already vast landholdings. A military camp, a school and a retirement home for the elderly behind the SM North Edsa mall, for example, are at risk of being lost.
The North Triangle in Quezon City, beside SM North Edsa, has already been lost to the Ayalas. The lot, part of what was envisioned to be the “Central Park” of the Capitol City, was supposed to be the depot for the Metro Rail Transit. A shopping mall is going to open there. Ayala was also able to lease the Commonwealth Avenue campus of the University of the Philippines in Diliman.
The government also wants to sell the adjacent Veterans’ Memorial Hospital. Robinson’s almost succeeded in getting the nearby nursery of the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation which, with its iron-clad lease contract with the national government, fought back and won in the courts.
Also in grave danger is the adjacent Ninoy Aquino Park of the Parks and Wildlife Office, an animal rescue center. Land developers are looking at a vacant piece of land of the Lung Center of the Philippines, right along the Quezon Memorial rotunda.
Of course, we already know that Fort Bonifacio has been sold to land developers but the sellers cannot explain where the proceeds went. Part of Villamor Air Base has been transformed into the ill-fated Terminal 3 of the international airport, and the government is planning to sell Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame. Government officials were so in a hurry to sell them (imagine the commissions!) they forgot to look at the deed of donation from the Ortigas family, which specified that if the camps are of no more use to the government, they would revert back to the donors. The government also tried to sell the Quezon Institute to SM until it was told that the land does not belong to the government but to the Philippine Tuberculosis Society.
In previous columns, I recounted how the title to the site of Cecilio Apostol Elementary School in the Monumento area of Caloocan City, which is worth P500 million, was transferred in 1990 to mall operator Gotesco Investments by the Caloocan City government without the former paying the city a single centavo. This case has a counterpart in Manila.
* * *
The Jose Abad Santos High School (JASHS) and Rajah Soliman High School (RSHS) stand on a property that used to be occupied by a police station called Cuartel Meisic in Binondo. They occupy about 2.5 hectares of land. The city council of Manila authorized the transfer of the title to this property to developer Megaworld Corp. The memorandum of agreement with Megaworld was signed last April 11, 2006 The two schools were supposed to be transferred to the old Namarco lot in Binondo, at the corner of Numancia and Urbiztondo streets.
The deal is illegal, according to Senators Alfredo Lim and Jamby Madrigal in a petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed in court.
In 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay, by virtue of Presidential Proclamation 46, excluded the site “from sale or settlement … reserving (it) for use of the City of Manila as sites for the Meisic Police Station, Jose Abad Santos High School, Basic Health Center, and the Office of the City Engineer.”
On Oct. 4, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued another proclamation, No. 925, declaring as a school site the old Namarco property in Binondo (corner Numancia and Urbiztondo Streets) and reserving the same for school buildings. That proclamation provided that the site shall be under the administration of the City of Manila but the administration of the school buildings shall be in coordination with the Department of Education. It also created an inter-agency committee composed of the mayor of Manila as chair and representatives from the Department of Education and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as members, to formulate the implementing rules.
Proclamation 46, the senators stressed, expressly excluded the property in question from “sale or settlement” and “reserved” the Cuartel Meisic compound as sites for JASHS and other specified government offices. Proclamation 925, on the other hand, reserved the Numancia/Urbiztondo property for the construction of school buildings.
“The scheme of the respondents — to remove JASHS and RSHS reserved by Proclamation 46 to give way to condominiums and a shopping mall — could not have been envisioned by Proclamation 925 as otherwise it could have been so stated in simple terms and there would be no need to formulate implementing rules and regulations,” the senators noted.
Moreover, the Cuartel Meisic is a historical site and, under the Constitution, it cannot be disposed of for private or commercial use. Neither can the structures on it be destroyed, without violating RA 7356. The City of Manila has no authority to transfer, by mere ordinance, the property to any party. Such transfer requires an act of the national government, either by a presidential fiat or a legislative initiative.
The agreement with Megaworld, for having violated presidential proclamations, is null and void, the two senators said.
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=34445
Filed under: Philippine Daily Inquirer | 1 Comment
By Tina Santos
BOXING idol Manny Pacquiao will soon become the latest addition to Manila’s collection of local heroes on Baywalk, Roxas Boulevard.
Mayor Lito Atienza disclosed on Thursday that a statue of Pacquiao would soon rise in the area to immortalize the latter’s contribution to Philippine sports.
“It’s about time that we honor this man who once again brought honor, pride and inspiration to our nation,” Atienza said.
He added that the city government would commission a national artist “who could best portray the emotions of Pacquiao, especially his superior left hook that knocked down (Mexican boxer Erik) Morales.”
“It will be slightly bigger than life-size and we will find an appropriate place for it along Baywalk,” the mayor said. “We’ll ask a national artist to do it as soon as possible so we can unveil it hopefully by early next year.”
To date, there are at least four sculptures that can be found on the two-kilometer Baywalk.
At the middle of the Baywalk fronting Rajah Sulayman Park is a sculpture of former Manila Mayor Arsenio Lacson, seated on a bench reading a newspaper.
The image of former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who is shown pointing towards the horizon, stands next to the sculpture of former Antique Governor Evelio Javier.
A five-piece bronze sculpture depicting the Filipino family can also be found in the area.
Meanwhile, a ticker-tape parade awaits the most famous and beloved fighter when he returns on Friday, Atienza said, adding that the city had prepared a “champion’s welcome” for the 27-year-old Pacquiao.
Organized by the Manila Sports Council, led by its chair Arnold Atienza, the welcome rites in honor of Pacquiao will begin with a thanksgiving Mass at the Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene (Quiapo Church) at 8 a.m.
After the Mass, Pacquiao will proceed to the Manila City Hall where he is expected to be given a warm welcome by hundreds of boxing afficionados and local government employees.
Following simple rites at the City Hall, the ring idol will proceed to Malacañang to pay a courtesy call to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
From there, the “adopted son of Manila” will lead a motorcade that will take him to the streets of Manila expected to be lined with residents eager to see him. The Pacquiao entourage is also expected to be showered with confetti along the route of the motorcade.
Starting from Manila City Hall, the caravan would pass through Sta. Cruz, Binondo, Recto Avenue, Tondo and San Andres Bukid and Malate, among other areas.
“We’ll take him to city streets, particularly in residential areas and urban poor communities, because these are the very same people I’m sure Pacquiao would like to thank because of their support,” Atienza said.
After the motorcade, a grand victory party likewise awaits Pacquiao and his fans at the Rajah Sulayman Park fronting Baywalk.
Atienza said that instead of their initial plan to rename the San Andres Sports Complex and Civic Center after Pacquiao, the city government will just put up a gym inside the sports center.
“We’ll name the gym after Pacquiao. We’ll also provide boxing equipment, such as gloves and sandbags, which aspiring boxers could use,” Atienza added.
http://specials.inq7.net/thepacquiaofiles/index.php?ver=1&index=1&story_id=34413
Note: There is Republic Act No. 1059, An Act Prohibiting the Naming of Sitios, Barrios, Municipalities, Cities, Provinces, Streets, Highways, Avenues, Bridges, and Other Public Thoroughfares, Parks, Plazas, Public Schools, Public Buildings, Piers, Government Aircrafts and Vessels, and Other Public Institutions After Living Persons.
Filed under: Philippine Daily Inquirer | Leave a Comment
By Sen. Alfredo S. Lim
The brilliance of gold is dazzling and blinds the eyes of those who may gaze upon it. Indeed, it corrupts in much the same way as power, to which history has been witness from the birth of civilization. Its metaphorical image in the minds of people pierces deep within their skin and into their consciousness, excluding neither the poor nor the rich, that even if juxtaposed with our equally treasured symbols and relics of traditions and values, its temptation lingers, and not uncommonly, overpowers. We need not look far beyond, for even right before our eyes, in the premier City of Manila, it weaves its mystique, threatening to cast away to oblivion two public and inalienable lands, and the cultural worth that has been attached to them.
These two lands, inseparably identified with institutions devoted to education and imbued with memories of the Manileños’ past, having existed for decades as public schools, accommodating no less than 10,000 poor students of Tondo, for free, the Rajah Sulayman High School and Jose Abad Santos High School, are awaiting their unexpected and dreaded demise, as their death certificates have been signed by no less than the City Council, with the death sentence struck – with a thumb-up sign, by its City Mayor. As heralded, from the schools’ burial sites will rise luxurious malls: the stereotypical symbols of the modern care-free lifestyle – luxurious wares, expensive foods, entertainment centers, fully air-conditioned establishments.
Without a doubt, this is the voice of gold, the whisper of wealth, heard and heeded by ears of avarice and greed.
It is a paradox that those people who traded the worth of these two humble schools for the sophistication and grandeur of commercial malls, are the same people chosen by the residents of Manila who put them in office so that their children may be guaranteed free education. It is equally ironic, that those who wield the derivative authority granted by the Local Government Code of 1991, do not seem to know how to properly exercise it. Or, are they merely pretending to be strangers to it?
Yet, these “chosen” people in Manila project to be ignorant of this doctrine in land ownership, a decree that has been consistently written from the 1935 up to the 1987 Constitution. In its most recent articulation, the Regalian Doctrine declares in Article XII, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution that “all lands of public domain, waters, mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources are owned by the state” and “shall not be alienated”, except agricultural lands.
In the landmark case of Chavez vs. PEA and AMARI, 384 SCRA 152, the origin of the doctrine was re-examined. It dates back during the Spanish conquest of the Philippines when “all lands, territories and possessions” were public domain of the King, except those he disposed of by grant or sale to private individuals. In the adoption of the Regalian doctrine, the State took the place of the King, manifested initially in Art. 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, and restated in Art. 420 of our present Civil Code, wherein it is written that property of public dominion are not only those devoted to public use but also to property not so used and employed for some economic or commercial activity, yet designed to increase the national wealth. Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 383 SCRA 611.
But as early as 1919, the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 2874, the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease but not the sale of public lands of the government to corporations and individuals, even before the passage of the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Upon approval of the 1936-Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as Public Land Act, the President was authorized by the National Assembly to classify lands of the public domain into “alienable or disposable” lands of the public domain and declare them open to disposition or concession.
Then President Ferdinand Marcos, through his 1977 PD No. 1084, created the Public Estates Authority (PEA), which was empowered to hold titles, not only of private lands but also of the public domain. Yet, it needed legislative authority to sell these lands, in view of Commonwealth Act No. 141 which provides that it can only do so when authorized by Congress. The late dictator also mandated the creation of the old Local Government Code, BP No. 881, which granted to local government units the authority to acquire, possess and own, as well as to dispose of their own property.
With the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 or Republic Act No. 7160, authored by no less than our esteemed colleague, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the era of local autonomy saw its advent. The authority then enjoyed by local government units under the old local government code was adopted. Thus, by virtue of Section 18 of R.A. 7160, they were empowered to generate and apply resources, among which was “to acquire, develop, lease, encumber, alienate or otherwise, dispose of real or personal property held by them in their proprietary capacity”, making the same even more meaningful especially since the thrust was administrative independence. Still, the privilege was not unlimited, just as what the Constitution decreed. Particularly, as far as disposition of property is concerned, only those patrimonial in nature can be alienated.
These legal premises considered, disturbing, to say the least, are the circulating reports that the City of Manila, through its colluding City Council and Local Chief Executive, and despite the contrary mandates of the Constitution and the laws, is lustfully eager with selling several of its strategically posted properties – properties as old and famous as the important events to which these have been witnesses through the years. Who would not know the aged Rizal Memorial Stadium, the nearby Harrison Plaza and Sheraton Hotel? How about the Army and Navy Club where the present historic Museum stands and a host of other priceless places which became part of our national economy and patrimony?
What is the forthcoming fate of these portals of Filipino heritage if the vagabond conscience of those authoring their lucrative dispositions is not flustered? Commercial districts being projected to rise from their ruins, is a nightmare forthcoming to the Manila constituents in the not-too-distant future, if we fail to manacle this excessive penchant for the sale of our symbols of heritage and culture.
Indeed, we ask: why are these City Officials of Manila so obsessed with selling otherwise key establishments and institutions in the City, only to have in their places the usual commercial centers which have casually become the “theme parks” for our people, promoting indolence and impracticality, and further diverting their attention to more meaningful and worthwhile activities?
Without a doubt, it is the lust and avarice for commissions expected to be generated from these multi-million peso projects – the hunger for power and wealth, summoning the vicious appetite for absoluteness and perpetuity, defying the voice of righteousness and integrity.
Of course, even these local executives will admit that majority of them saw light, later than the birth of those historical edifices and buildings, yet, they connive to deliberately pretend that these places are classified as agricultural lands and therefore alienable. Sadly, they project to be unknowing that Section 3 of the same Article XII of the Constitution is absolute and unalterable: public properties, being outside the commerce of man, could not be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts, as ruled in Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20; Li Seng Giap vs. Municipal Council of Daet, (CA), Off. Gaz. Supp., November 1, 1941, p. 217.
In the course of business, they may well argue that under Art. 422 of the Civil Code, the property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State or its private property. Yet, it may be so only upon a declaration by the government, through the executive or legislative departments, to the effect that it is no longer needed for public use or service. (Ignacio vs. Director of Lands, (SC), 58 Off. Gaz. 2403; Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. vs. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481) For so long as the property has been intended for public use or service, and the government has neither devoted it otherwise, nor adopted any measure removing it from the public domain, the same remains property for public use or service, its non-employment as such notwithstanding. (Capitulo, et al. vs. Aquino, etc., (SC), 53 Off. Gaz. 1477)
Hence, the mere possession of land does not by itself automatically divest it of its public character. (Cuevas vs. Pineda, 143 SCRA 674; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689)
Consider the Roppongi site in Japan. Its non-use in a long time for actual diplomatic service did not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use, since it is not, it continues to be part of public domain and thus, outside the commerce of man (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. vs. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]; Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]).
No less than the Supreme Court was emphatic in several cases that where the municipality has occupied lands distinctly for public purposes, such as for the municipal court house, the public school, the public market, or necessary municipal building, in the absence of proof to the contrary, there can be no presumption of its grant from the state in favor of the municipality. (Municipality of Hinunangan vs. Director of Lands, 24 Phil. 125)
Beyond cavil, the extent of legislative control over properties of municipal corporations is simple. If the property is owned by the municipality or city in its public and governmental capacity, the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, L-24440, March 28, 1969
Although there is some authority to the effect that at the common law a municipal corporation, unless restrained by the express terms of its charter or by necessary implication, could dispose of lands and other property in the same manner as private persons, there is a clear distinction, recognized by practically all authorities, between property purchased and held by municipal corporations for the use of the corporation as an entity and that purchased and held by such corporation for the public use and benefit of its citizens. In other words, its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for strictly corporate uses and purposes are different from its title to and power of disposition of property acquired for and actually dedicated to the public use of inhabitants. As to the former class, the power of the corporation to dispose of it, unless restrained by charter or statute, is unquestioned. As a general rule, the power of a municipal corporation to convey such property is equal to its power to acquire it. A municipal corporation having absolute title to property without limitation or restriction as to its alienation may dispose of such property at any time before it is dedicated to public use.
On the other hand, it is generally held that a municipal corporation has no implied power to sell real property which is held for a public use, and that such power cannot be implied from general charter or authority to acquire, hold, or convey property. The principle is that all such property is held by the municipality in trust for the use and benefit of its citizens and is dedicated to the use of the public, and the corporation cannot divest itself of title without specific authority from the legislature. It is only when the public use has been abandoned, or the property has become unsuitable or inadequate for the purpose to which it was dedicated, that a power of disposition is recognized in the corporation. Municipal Corporations, etc., 56 Am Jur 2d, 602-604
Considering these precepts, the city officials of Manila, for instance, cannot rely upon the March 3, 2006 endorsement to the City Council of Manila from the Office of the City Mayor relative to the projected “sale, lease or for joint venture of the city’s patrimonial properties with a lot area of less than 250 square meters in Manila”, in line with its granted authority to Manila Mayor Jose Atienza through its enacted Resolution No. 10, dated February 1, 1996. Indeed, recourse to legal procedures of exercising the power of expropriation through enacted Resolution of the City Council is not an iron-clad guarantee of its success.
At the moment, let us be reminded of the lessons eruditely written by the ponente in the landmark Manila Hotel case, in which we may liken the present City Mayor and City Council of Manila to those GSIS officials who nearly sold to a Malaysian firm-bidder the block of 51% shares of the Manila Hotel, deigned as the repository of the 20th century Philippine history and culture, the reflection of the Filipino soul and not an ordinary piece of property in a commercial district. The Highest Tribunal aptly censured them in the Manila Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408, in the following tenor:
“The conveyance of Manila Hotel, an epic exponent of the Filipino psyche, to alien hands cannot be less than mephistophelean, for it is, in whatever manner viewed, a veritable alienation of a nation’s soul for some pieces of foreign silver.”
It is for these reasons that I call upon you, my esteemed colleagues, who have been chosen not by our constituents in one locality or region, but by the multitude of our fellow Filipinos across the land and even beyond its borders, to remind the aldermen in the City of Manila not to be blinded by the dazzling brilliance of gold, and certainly not to be blind to our past embedded and reflected in the gates, hallways, walls of the very same institutions which they would apparently bury in history with the sale of the lands on which they are situated.
Our experience more extensive, our concerns more nationalistic, our perspective more comprehensive, we, the Senate, have not been daunted nor cowered by attempts at intrusions into our own prerogatives and desecration of our own place in the Philippine Government and society by even the most powerful of the powers that be. Surely, we would not let other lesser people from fooling us right before our eyes!
Let us therefore make this firm: that Congress did not enact the Local Government Code in order to make council members and local executive officers in the localities and provinces masters above their makers, nor masters within their own respective domains. For while we in the National Government remain servants of our true sovereign, so should our creations in the local government, which we have made our agents in our goals for this country, remain loyal and faithful to those who have chosen them, and to their respective oaths to uphold and protect the Constitution and our laws.
As a final statement, let those officials in Manila be reminded: The postulates of our Constitution are not mere platitudes which we should honor only in rhetoric but not in reality. To contract for the sale of an inalienable property is illegal; to bargain the ideals of our Constitution through such sale is suicidal.
Filed under: Malaya | Leave a Comment
Remember the Jai Alai?
By Augusto Villalon
MARK the 15th of July on your calendars.
On that date in 2000 began the demolition of the Jai Alai, one of Asia’s finest Art Deco buildings, a structure that was to have given way to a new Hall of Justice for the City of Manila.
Its demolition was one of the “defining moments,” as Inquirer columnist Bambi Harper called it, in the uphill battle to preserve Philippine architectural heritage.
Public protest was loud. Conservationists negotiated with city officials to save the building. But the Jai Alai building went down anyway.
The Hall of Justice was never built.
How far has heritage preservation gone since then?
Today, five years later, construction looms in both Mehan Garden and the Arroceros Forest Park located in central Manila close to the site of the former Jai Alai.
Both sites are designated as nationally significant archeological sites by the National Museum. Furthermore, Arroceros has the added value of being the only full-grown inner city forest in Manila. Just think of its contribution to the city’s stressed ecology.
Construction excavation is underway at Arroceros. Tempers continue to fly on either side of the issue and negotiation is near deadlock. Compromise does not appear to be on the agenda of either side.
Although there are hard and fast rules followed both in preservation as well as in development, agreement might be reached that satisfies the requirements of both sides.
Who knows? An innovative solution might be reached that provides the smallest construction footprint to maximize open space in Mehan Garden or the Arroceros forest. Buildings and nature can be designed to coexist.
Countless architectural and environmental possibilities exist. It is just a great pity that none of these possibilities were given the opportunity to be talked about and tested.
The Philippines sorely lacks a model of how preservation and development go hand in hand. With the Jai Alai, Mehan Garden, and Arroceros Forest Park, we missed the opportunity to construct such a model. However, I still am hopeful that such a model will arise in the near future.
When all sectors of society join to complete a conservation project where all issues are discussed before the design of the structure is completed, then we will know that the Jai Alai building was not a senseless loss.
http://news.inq7.net/lifestyle/index.php?index=2&story_id=43045
The Game’s Over
A link with the past goes as Manila’s Jai Alai stadium is torn down
By Peter Cordingly and Ruel S. de Vera
Asiaweek [September 1 , 2000 Vol. 26 No. 34]
Ignore, if you can, the poverty and garbage that spill on to the city’s streets. Block out the sight of vagabond children hawking tat at traffic intersections. Peer, instead, through the diesel fumes and back to a time when Manila was a gentler place, a blossoming metropolis tipped to be the pride of Asia. This was in the years just before World War II, when the Philippine Commonwealth was preparing for independence from the U.S. and anything seemed possible. Among the jewels of that period: Taft Avenue, a mini-Champs Elysee, with grand homes, sparkling movie houses, colleges and spectacular Art Deco buildings. One of the finest was the Jai Alai stadium, opened in 1940 as a home for the Basque game of the same name and quickly adopted as a playground by the rich and glamorous.
Today, little of the old Taft Avenue is left. Grimy and eternally ensnarled in traffic, it is clogged by too many people living in too little space, with many of the old buildings flattened by American or Japanese bombs. And, as of last week, the Jai Alai building was just about gone too. Despite a determined and emotional campaign to save it, the Art Deco edifice was being pulled down to make way for a court building. Conservationists are livid but powerless. With the disappearance of the sports center, they say, the Philippine capital has lost one of the few remaining landmarks from a time when the city cherished elegance. Says John L. Silva, a member of the Heritage Conservation Society: “Every time we tear down an old structure, particularly one that resonates with history and milestones, we as a people lose another marker that explains who we are as a nation, where we came from and where we are going.”
The four-story Jai Alai building was the work of noted American architect Welton Becket, a friend of Hollywood celebrities and designer of the homes of such screen legends as James Cagney and Cesar Romero, as well as of Los Angeles airport. The Jai Alai’s sleek, cylindrical glass front was said to evoke the velocity of the game, in which pelotaris use curved scoops to hurl a rubber ball at speeds of up to 200 km an hour against three walls of a court. But the building was a lot more than a sports hall. Every night, Manila’s socialites would gather in the elegant Sky Room to party and dine. Those seated closest to the balcony could also watch the competition. “They had a grand view of the game,” says Silva, a consultant to the National Museum. “They would conduct bets through the waiters while enjoying dinner.” Says newspaper columnist, socialite and conservationist Bambi Harper: “Back then, the Sky Room was really the only place to hold big functions, aside from the Manila Hotel.”
Silva says the disappearance of the Jai Alai building is one more example of city hall’s “consistent disregard” for Manila’s cultural past. Writing in the Philippine Inquirer, he accuses: “Last year, it tried to destroy the Army Navy building, now the Museo ng Maynila [Manila Museum], and to gobble up the adjoining Museong Pambata [Children's Museum] by attempting to put up a boutique and shopping mall.” He says another Manila landmark, the 69-year-old Metropolitan Theater, is in a poor state because of lack of official attention. “When it rains, it pours inside the Met,” he complains.
Before its eventual demise, the Jai Alai building had gone the same way, accelerated toward its fate by the anything-goes years of the Marcos regime, during which it was closed in a match-fixing scandal. Under the control of the national government, it fell into disrepair, as did the neighborhood. Those who could afford to get out got out, replaced by squatters living in shacks, with, at first, a red-light district around the corner and now a rumbling Light Rail Transit system overhead. The sport of jai alai, meaning “merry festival,” returned to Manila in 1994, but to new premises a short distance from the original. The old building was handed over to the City of Manila in 1999.
Mayor Lito Atienza, who studied architecture in college, says he is aware of the Jai Alai building’s pedigree, but argues that it was necessary to tear it down. He believes the need for a new courthouse far outweighs the sports center’s historical value. “I’ve been given an opportunity by the national government to build a hall of justice,” he told Asiaweek. “I am proceeding with the task even if we have to sacrifice part of our historical past in the process.” To suggestions that the Jai Alai building could have been saved and adapted as a court, he replies: “That building has been housing criminals, [purse-] snatchers and pickpockets and even deteriorated into a casbah. It would not work as a new justice building if we kept the faCade because people would remember the game-fixing and the cheating, instead of the dignity that befits a hall of justice. It just wouldn’t blend.”
Atienza is portraying the demolition of the Jai Alai building as the beginning of the rehabilitation of Taft Avenue — “You get a hall of justice and you get rid of a decaying part of Manila.” Conservationists concur about the need to clean up the district, but argue that there was no need to pull down the building. Says Silva: “The Heritage Conservation Society felt the building was a good candidate for adaptive re-use. The demolition was completely unnecessary.” Many people agree. Columnist Harper would have liked to see the Jai Alai turned into a college or a modern-art gallery. Architect Emmanuel MiNana envisaged a mixed-use building with podium parking, a commercial mall, office space, and high-end service apartments or a hotel on the upper floors. He says such a development would also have generated good revenue for the government, “an all-win situation with regards to the balance of preserving a large part of a building’s cultural heritage as well as providing an economically viable solution that is realistic for the City of Manila.”
Urban economist Raymund Magdaluyo believes the Jai Alai building could have been converted into a world-class theater, bringing culture back to Manila “big time.” The mayor thinks all this unfeasible. “We cannot keep clinging to the past in the name of conservation if government has limited resources,” he says.
As the demolition team prepared to move in July 15 for 45 days of work, conservationists stepped up their efforts to save the building. They held demonstrations at the site and blitzed city hall with e-mails. Says Silva: “Many neighboring countries and cities have now recognized that buildings with such distinctions go a long way to promoting national and cultural pride.” Atienza was not convinced. Nor was the presidential palace, which let it be known that President Joseph Estrada would not intervene.
Atienza promises to protect Manila’s remaining landmarks. The Heritage Conservation Society says it will believe that when it sees it. It argues that the only guarantee is legislation to safeguard old buildings. Meanwhile, conservationists have a new slogan — “Remember the Jai Alai.”
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0901/as.heritage.html
More related articles
After the Jai Alai building, what’s next?
Wrecking Ball of Mayor Lito Atienza in his destruction of the Jai Alai building
Sinungaling. A Message to Mayor Lito Atienza
Filed under: Philippine Daily Inquirer | Leave a Comment
Search
