A. ON THE DEFERMENT OF THE ITEM RE:
AMENDMENT REMOVING THE 10% GREEN SPACE
It was published that I “demanded” that the item be deferred
on the 3rd and final reading. Not true. The Sangguniang Panlungsod
is a collegial body. We arrive at
decisions through consensus. There
were several of us, even those who voted yes to the amendment, who were huddled
together on recess because there were environmental groups present in the
gallery. It is a fact that their views and voices were not heard in this
concern. Options discussed were, a. for a representative of the group to be
given a chance to speak before the council; b. to defer the item and have a meeting
with the environmental groups; c. to vote on third and final reading that
day. These options were discussed freely
and intelligently in that huddle. The final consensus was to defer the item.
The environmental groups were informed and they were happy
about it. After a few minutes they left the gallery. At some point I also went
out to go to my office to go to the restroom. When I got back to the session
hall, I was surprised that the item was being voted upon already on third on
final reading, which was different from the consensus earlier.
B. I WAS ACCUSED OF NOT DOING MY JOB
I am not a member of the Committee of Rules and Privileges
and the Committee on Housing which handled the item. Hence, my office did not receive any
invitation.
I was listening to the discussions on the floor, and
discussed it with some councilors too. I was also interested in what their
opinions were about the item. Even
before I could raise my hand to be acknowledged by the presiding officer for
remarks, a councilor approached me and tried to convince me to remove the
required 10% green space and just incorporate it in the 30% open space. He said
the trees and plants could be incorporated in the 2 meters setback from the
sidewalk. I said councilor, the homeowner may have other plans. He could put a
driveway on his lot to accommodate his car. So that piece of green space would
be gone. The buyer has a right to have
access for his car to enter his lot. And then there would be buyers who do not
want trees in the front area of their house for various reasons. He went on
trying to convince me until it was already time to vote. When the time came for
voting, I manifested that I want to explain my vote so that it is put on record
in the sanggunian. I voted to retain the 10% green space because I feel that
open space and green space are different. I do not want it to be incorporated
in the 30% because that portion is already allotted for other significant needs
of the homeowners. The 30% open space required by the national law is already
allotted for roads, drainage, water and energy facilities, community
facilities, amenities that may have been promised by the developer like club
house or multipurpose hall, gym, basketball court, parks and playground etc. In
the 30% open space, a large part of it is already eaten up by roads and drainage. Only a fraction of it would be left for community facilities for homeowners. I believe it is a good and
sound policy and is part of a progressive piece of legislation that Davao City
is famous for. And amending it would be
a step backward. I voted no to the proposed amendment to remove it and
incorporate it in the 30%. On both the 2nd committee report and 3rd
reading, I gave the same answer and same vote. I believe I did my task well as
a consistent legislator.
Why did Councilor
Acosta not ask for a deferment on the 2nd reading? Why did she not call the attention of the
environmentalists on the 2nd reading?
I did not know that the views and voices of environmental groups were
not heard at all the whole time. I
did not know that they were not given the chance to participate in the
legislative process. I was as surprised as they were. It was only after the second reading that I learned
that their views and voices were not heard at all.
C. I WAS ACCUSED OF “STARTING THIS”
What exactly did I “start”? I am already 50 years old, half a
century old. I have been a legislator from 2001 to 2010, and from 2013 up to
present. More than 12 years. Even before I was an elected official, I was
brought up as an independent young girl, growing up and slugging it out with 5
brothers; was a campus writer, a student leader, a Communications teacher, a
broadcast journalist, a wife, a mother; an advocate for women and children’s
welfare, good governance, education, environmental protection, etc.; a proud
citizen of Davao, a productive member of society.
To those accusing me, what exactly did I start? Did I dictate
upon, or commandeer, or summon environmental groups to manifest their
sentiments to the council? No. What I
know is that whatever beliefs I carry now, have long been with me since my
formative years during childhood, and has guided me through the years into
maturity.
In all my 50 years on earth, I have never been so embarrassed,
and unjustly and unfairly accused. I did not see it coming when I was
“reprimanded”, so to speak. I could not believe it was actually happening. I
was so disillusioned and frustrated with the unworthy conduct. The crassness and absurdity of it all was a
shock. Matanda na po ako. Alam ng mga taga Davao na ginagawa ko po ang aking
trabaho. I will not claim to be an expert, but napagdaanan ko ang basics ng
legislative process. I do not deserve the treatment that I got from my
colleagues. Shabby, unfair, and uncalled
for, it was. It is not necessary for
everybody to like me, but my position as an elected representative of the
people deserves respect. I, and the
people of Davao, do not deserve hot-headed outbursts. We deserve a calm and
participative and intelligent democratic process.
How could I be accused of “starting” whatever? I have no
control over environmental groups or advocates. They are responsible enough,
and mature enough, and intelligent enough to think and act on their own. That
we happened to have a similar outlook is a fateful coincidence. I just continue
on from where I started a long way back. I had no intentions of painting anyone
black or white. That is not my handiwork. Sound policy that puts a premium on
the public’s well-being is shared by most of us.
D. ON THE PRESENCE OF FR. TABORA IN THE
CITY COUNCIL
After the 3rd reading, my office received a letter from
Ecoteneo, which reads in part,
”… We are grateful for the consistent
stand and show of commitment towards sustainable development that you have
demonstrated, particularly your vote against the amendment to remove the 10%
green space requirement in the CLUP (2013-2022). This morning the Ateneo de Davao University
hosted a press conference attended by youth groups representatives , the
architects of Davao, the Urban Container Gardening (UCG) Movement and various
interest groups in the city. Our University President, Fr. Joel Tabora, SJ,
also shared his position on the matter, the points of which are shared by all.
We are asking your kind office to give him time during the hearing tomorrow to
share with the Council the sentiments and concerns of the public who are
constituents of your colleagues in the City Council. We are very much aware
that the stone has been cast, and the vote has been made last Tuesday, albeit
the decision to defer and give way to public consultation. We are asking for a
few minutes of the precious time of the Council to give the public a chance to
be heard and a voice that was lost in the decision making by the people’s
representatives. May the spirit of dialogue bring us together as we charter the
growth of Davao where we are proud to say that life is here.”
I explained to them that there is no hearing the next day. The voting has
been done already in the 3rd and final reading last week. What is
scheduled for the next day is the regular council session. Still they followed up on their request for a
few minutes for Fr. Tabora. So the next
day, I availed of the privilege hour starting with reading en toto the letter-request I got from Ecoteno, then asking for a
few minutes recess to allow Fr. Tabora to speak. However, Fr. Tabora was not
able to make it as explained by his representative, Mylai Santos. Ms. Santos also
stated that a petition is in the works, and hopes that the conversation
continues. On record, I asked that Fr.
Tabora be allowed to speak in the next session. On record, there was no objection from the body. On February 9,
2016, I was in Manila on official business and the regular session started
early and ended early to accommodate guests from Cordova, Cebu, and the
councilors who are set to fly to Manila that same morning. On February 16,
2016, I availed of the privilege hour and moved for a recess to allow Fr.
Tabora to speak. And then there were colleagues who tried to stop Fr. Tabora
from speaking. I am thankful that Councilor Militar supported me in that
motion, hence Fr. Tabora was able to speak. I am also thankful to other
colleagues who perhaps sympathize with me, but could not express it in public.
E. ON PRIVILEGE HOUR
The Council’s House Rules provides for rule eleven: Privilege
Hour. It says any member of the council can avail of this privilege. It did not
have restrictions on subject matter. Why anybody would want to stop me from
availing of the Privilege Hour that would allow me and my guest to speak is
questionable. That is my right. Just as my guest, who is a constituent of this
city, has a right to be heard by the leaders they elected as their
representatives.
F. MEDIA COVERAGE
It was just this Monday when Ecoteneo asked assistance from our office if
they could get an appointment with the Vice Mayor so that Fr. Tabora could make
a courtesy call before the session started. It was granted by the Vice Mayor.
For the record, it was the Vice Mayor himself who suggested in his text message
to me that Fr. Tabora, and myself along with two other councilors be the guests
of the media hour before session starts. I thanked him for what I thought was a
kind gesture. It was a good sign, I thought then. It would also be my first
time to be interviewed after the voting was done. The following day, Tuesday, a
representative of Ecoteneo was at the media hour with us councilors, and Fr.
Tabora was at the courtesy call. Session started right after, and Fr. Tabora
was able to speak during the time allotted to me as member of the council
during the privilege hour. What happened to me after that, was truly
unexpected.
G. ON LEGISLATION
In the vernacular, the City Council is Sangguniang Panlungsod. Sangguni means advice or consultation. Lungsod refers to city or constituency. It
is commonly held that good policies come out when the voices of the people are
heard.
H. APPEAL
I love Davao City and its people. I love that Davao is different from
other places. I love that Davao City has good leadership and way ahead in terms
of progressive legislation on public health, peace and order, environment,
women and children, etc. I love that Davaoenos are proud of their city and what
it has become now. True enough, a big part of the land of our City is still
green due to agricultural and protected areas, and the City Government has also
provided a big budget for green programs.
It also holds true that if we maintain green spaces in subdivisions and
other urban areas, it will be accessible to people of all walks of life, rich
or poor, young and old, who want to avail of its benefits for health and
well-being. The residents within the subdivision need not spend much to enjoy green
spaces as these are closer to home.
Meantime, we work, and wait. And hope for the best.
( fin )
1 comment:
I am with you in this fight Ma'am. I hope you won't get discouraged by the way they disrespected you but instead fight more for what is for good for Davao and its people.
God bless you!
Post a Comment