Legal Counsel Letter refuting Monsod’s article on Philippine Inquirer

Posted on | February 6, 2010 | 2 Comments

We wish to respectfully convey our comments on your article entitled “Get Real: Manny Villar blameless?” published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on 30 January 2010.

First. It is imperative to point out the differences between the Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP) and the C5 Road Extension Project (C5 Road Extension).

The MCTEP is a toll road, which requires payment of toll fees; while the C5 Road Extension is a public road, which allows free passage to all commuters. In other words, the C5 Extension Road is an alternative route to commuters who cannot afford to pay toll fees. The MCTEP has “limited access”, meaning it has a single entry and exit point; while the C5 Road Extension has “open access”, such that through said road commuters can access various cities and/or municipalities. Clearly, by their very nature, it is not difficult to comprehend that the 2 projects are not mutually exclusive of each other or that the C5 Road Extension is a duplicate of the MCTEP. The construction of the C5 Road Extension did NOT result in MCTEP becoming unnecessary as to require its being discontinued. The truth is both projects are necessary to decongest the worsening traffic condition in Paranaque, Las Pinas and Cavite.

Second.There is no evidence whatsoever that the alignment of the C5 Road Extension was determined by Senator Villar or that its alignment was changed in order that it should pass through the real estate properties of Senator Villar’s companies.

If at all there was any re-alignment of the C5 Road Extension Project, it was only a slight shifting of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of the LRT Line I South Extension Project. This slight shifting of Bridge No. 2 was at the request of LRTA; and it did not involve any intervention or even a request from Senator Villar.

What has been conveniently ignored is the letter dated 15 October 2008, of DPWH Regional Director Roberto G. Lala, CESO III, to DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. (which letter was attached to the Affidavit submitted by Engr. Adriano to the SCOW), thus:

“The segment of C-5 Project that is described hereto is from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Ave. (also known as Paranaque-Las Piñas Link Road)

The project was not re-routed as it followed theoriginal route or alignment prepared by the DPWH-NCR except for the location of one bridge (Bridge No. 2) whose centerline was slightly shifted in the upstream direction in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of LRT Line I South Extension Project. This was made in attention to the request of LRTA to then NCR Regional Director Salvador A. Pleyto, per letter dated Feb. 23, 2001 copy attached marked as Annex I. But even with this slight change, the 30 meters road right-of-way was still maintained. Except for such shifting of the Bridge No. 2, no more modification was made from the original alignment up to its construction phases from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Avenue.” (As cited in the Affidavit of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 11:06 a.m., pp. 2-3)”

Third. Not having anything to do with the final disposition of his proposed amendments to the 2008 GAA, Senator Villar cannot be accused of proposing the amendments in order to benefit himself and his real estate companies as the said “double insertion” in the 2008 GAA was intended to secure payment to Senator Villar’s real estate companies compensation for the ROW taken by the C5 Road Extension.

The Senate’s role in the enactment of the GAA starts and ends with its proposing and approving amendments thereto. Once approved and signed into law by the President of the Philippines, the Senate or the Senators no longer have anything to do with the disposition or implementation of the GAA, which belongs solely to the implementing agencies of the Executive Department.

There is nothing from the evidence presented to even suggest that Senator Villar ever intervened in the disposition or implementation of the 2008 GAA as to derive benefit for himself or his real estate companies to the detriment of the Filipino people.

On the contrary, the record shows that other land owners in the same area of Las Piñas and Parañaque whose lands were also taken by the DPWH as ROW for the C5 Road Extension were long paid ahead for their lands, while some companies of Senator Villar, like the Golden Haven and API, have not even filed the requisite documents with the DPWH to facilitate payment. (Testimony of Engineer Adriano, TSN, 8 September 2009, 12:06 pm, p. 4; 12:46 pm., pp. 4-5).

Fourth. Valuation of properties depends, among others, on its size and location. It is not, therefore, correct to get the “weighted average” of the prices paid for the Villar properties and those paid for the non-Villar properties and imply a conclusion that Villar companies were paid higher valuation.

The properties owned by Villar companies that were traversed by the C5 Road Extension are located in different areas and therefore, have different values. Those that have “frontage” and/or classified “commercial” were given higher valuation and those that are “interior” and/or classified “residential” were given lower valuation – which was the same parameter used for properties owned by other landowners.

Again, what was conveniently ignored was the testimony of Former BIR-Paranaque Revenue Officer, Ms. Carmelita Bacod whom complainant Senator Madrigal had subpoenaed. Ms. Bacod not verified the P30,000.00 zonal valuation for the lots along Sucat Road but also the P4,500.00 per square meter zonal valuation for the other lots.

She explained that the other lots along Sucat Road are classified as “residential”; hence, they have a zonal valuation of only P4,500.00 per square meter. She went on to explain further that the Masaito lots were classified as “commercial/regular,” hence, they have a zonal valuation of P30,000.00 per square meter. (TSN of 22 September 2009, 12:23pm, pp. 7-8).

Ms. Bacod was even adamant about the zonal valuation as she declared at the hearing on 22 September 2009 that if she wereto issue another certification, she would use the same zonal valuation for the Masaito lots. (Ibid., p. 7). Thus:

“MR. FRANCISCO: But if you are to make another certification and you were asked for the zonal valuation of San Dionisio, Sucat Road, what will you state?

MS. BACOD: I will state the same facts as contained in the same certification.

MR. FRANCISCO: Which is?

MS. BACOD: That the zonal value of the property will still be 30,000 per square meter.

MR. FRANCISCO: Even if that is not found in the Revised Zonal Valuation of 1998?

MS. BACOD: Yes, because in this page 9 of San Dionisio, even if the zonal value of Don Antonio Avenue – the zonal value is 4,500, it is residential. But we have – on page 9, we have commercial/residential valuation of Php30,000.00. And for sure, my basis for classifying this property as commercial/regular is the tax declaration presented to us as issued by the Assessor’s Office classifying the same property as commercial/residential as to its actual use, Your Honor.”

More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that Senator Villar ever interfered with the issuance by the BIR of the zonal valuation of the properties of his companies taken for ROW of the C5 Road Extension. And, the Senate Committee of the Whole in its Report admitted this. Thus, page 83 thereof states, “xxx xxx although there is no evidence to prove the direct participation of Senator Villar in the overpricing of such properties, it is fair and safe to assume that Senator Villar knew about the said overpricing xxx.” To this we say – Since when has it been “safe” to assume a person’s liability?

We trust that you shall consider our position on the matter.

Very truly yours,
MA. NALEN ROSERO-GALANG
Legal Counsel
Sen. Manuel B. Villar, Jr.

02 February 2010
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Comments