INC worries about possible damage to other structures

It’s not just a portion of the perimeter wall that has to  be torn down.

At  least one concrete two-storey building inside the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) compound in Cebu City will be affected by a planned four-meter setback for a  government  road widening project on F. Sotto Drive.

The church’s Buklod District Office would  have to be  demolished if the  court order is carried out.

The   quarters of their minister, a powerhouse for generator sets and a septic tank would also be partially damaged by the road setback.

Two personnel from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) 7  yesterday went to the church to hand a copy of the legal opinion from the Office of Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson  which states that the agency can continue with the project.

Romel Pañares, a minister of INC’s Cebu South District,  received  the document.

INC officials, who thought negotiations were still ongoing,  expressed shock over reports that  DPWH 7 wanted to start  the demolition yesterday.

Pañares said the report stirred worries among INC members and officials who feared that their church along Gen. Maxilom Ave. would be left with  one side exposed and open by the DPWH’s planned demolition.

INC’s district minister in Cebu reportedly flew to Manila yesterday to consult their central office and that of the DPWH.

The road-widening project  started in 2013  but faced delays as  the church tried to seek reconsideration and the  DPWH started expropriation proceedings.

When INC lost in court   proceedings, the church tried administrative remedies by appealing to the office of Secretary Singson.

“By September 14, we will already start with the demolition,” said Engr. Ervin Rey Llorente, project inspector of the P33 million F. Sotto Drive road widening project.

He was accompanied by DPWH 7 Road Right of Way Agent Franz Marlvin Jagape.

DPWH 7 will send a written notice to the INC’s Central office in Quezon City by Monday, as this was requested by lawyer Wilfredo Santos of the INC’s legal department in Manila through a telephone conversation with  DPWH 7 personnel yesterday.

In their phone conversation, INC’s Santos asked for  due process by seeking a  written notice from the DPWH 7 before they start the demolition.

This prompted DPWH to move the date of the actual demolition next week, September 14.

The demolition of part of the INC’s wall along F. Sotto was already the subject of a Writ of Possession issued by the  Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 18 last October 18, 2014 in favor of the DPWH 7.

Jagape said this means the agency could have  already started with the  demolition even if negotiations for just  compensation  for INC  are  pending in court.

He said an  amount was already deposited by the DPWH in court.

However, the process was stalled when the INC’s Legal Department  wrote  to Secretary Singson opposing the F. Sotto widening project.

According to Engr. Rachel Lumapas, project engineer,  the P33 million project was funded by the DPWH 7’s budget in 2013. It is 33 percent complete due to the expropriation proceedings for the affected lots.

Project inspector Llorente said the road widening will make F. Sotto 20 meters wide.

“Of the total 20 meters, 13.4 meters will be the roadway while the 6.6 meters will be used for the sidewalk on both sides,” he said.

DPWH 7 Chief Legal Officer Brando Ray Raya earlier said the  opinion of the secretary was a go-signal to push on with the demolition of the wall.

In their letter, INC stated  six grounds for their opposition.  They said the project will destroy a religious edifice of historical significance and unduly disrupt constitutionally protected religious activities.

But Estrella Decena-Zaldivar, Director IV, Legal Service of the DPWH Secretay’s Office, argued that religious structures are not exempt from expropriationus properties,” she said in the opinion dated August 13, 2015.

She cited an October 1999 Supreme Court court case of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, which said religious properties, like churches and cemeteries, are not exempted from the power of eminent domain, although the State, as a matter of policy, does not take properties devoted to public use.

The INC also said (1) the project does not serve public interest, (2) the project will only congest further  vehicle  traffic  in  Gen. Maxilom Ave., (3) DPWH should have considered other less injurious and costly  options such as the construction of a diversion road leading to or along other less progressive areas in order to spur economic growh in the city.

The INC also argued that the area has been and still is progressive and will continue to grow without the expansion or widening of interior roads. The church said this will only flood the area with heavier traffic.

The huge  expenses and damage to be incurred by the government and affected property owners are also not commensurate to the alleged benefit, said the INC.
Zaldivar refuted  INC’s arguments point-by-point.

“While it may be true that the project will congest the flow of vehicular traffic in the area, the same will only be for the duration of the project. What the project will be providing is a long term solution to decrease vehicular traffic in Gen. Maxilom Area,” she said.

She also explained that under Article 1 of Republic Act 917 or the Philippine Highway Act, the DPWH has the authority to select, locate, designate highways, acquire and use right of way and to construct, reconstruct and maintain it.

She said it can hardly be alleged that the DPWH did not follow proper procedures and that the presumption of regularity should be upheld.

“… since the expropriation of the land and structure is to be used for public purposes and that there is genuine necessity as determined by the RTC of Cebu City for the implementation of the said project, there is more reason for the DPWH to continue with the expropriation of the said land and property,” Zaldivar concluded in her three-page opinion.

TAGS: