Villar lawyer responds to GMANews.TV's C5 Extension map

The following letter was received from Atty. Nalen Rosero-Galang, presidential candidate Manuel Villar's legal counsel, in response to GMANews.TV's C5 interactive map that shows the originally planned C5 road extension project, dubbed the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP), and the nearly parallel road project that became known as C5 Extension, which was the subject of a Senate inquiry. 04 February 2010 MR. HOWIE SEVERINO Editor-in-Chief GMANews.TV Dear Mr. Severino, We wish to convey our comments on the article entitled “The C5 Extension Controversy: An Interactive Map" that appeared on GMAnews.TV. 1. It is totally erroneous to refer to the Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (the “MCTEP") as the “originally planned route" of the C5 Road Extension Project (the “C5 Extension"). The MCTEP and the C5 Extension are two (2) separate and distinct projects. First. The MCTEP is a toll road, which requires payment of toll fees; while the C5 Extension is a public road, which allows free passage to all commuters. C5 Extension is, therefore, an alternative route to commuters who either cannot afford, or simply do not want, to pay toll fees. Second. The MCTEP is a joint venture project between the Government, through the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB), and UEM-Mara, Phils.; while the C5 Extension is a project of the government, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). In other words, the construction of the MCTEP is privately financed while that of C5 Extension is wholly funded by the government. Third. 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. Fourth. The MCTEP is “elevated"; while the C5 Extension is a “surface" road – which means MCTEP is more expensive to construct than the C5 Extension. And, without a private finance, it would require more capital investment from the government. Needless to state, because of their distinct “designs", it is not difficult to comprehend that the 2 projects are not mutually exclusive of each other. In other words, either project is a duplicate of the other. 2. It is likewise erroneous to say that the “rerouted project forced the government to scrap its originally planned C5 extension (via the MCTEP), even after multi-billion-peso payments by the government in road-right-of-way compensation for land that was not needed after all". First. The MCTEP was not rerouted. The sole basis of the Senate Committee of the Whole (SCOW) for its finding of alleged “rerouting" is the C5 Feasibility Study of the DPWH which states that “(T)he TRB has a present alignment stretching from the SLEX to Las Pinas City. We are requesting, accordingly, that a kilometer of the said alignment (that which is in the area of the SLEX) be re-aligned in order for the said area to be utilized by the CX-5". Interestingly, the SCOW’s very own evidence actually confirms that there are 2 different projects. And, if at all there was a realignment of the MCTEP it involved only a “kilometer" of the TRB alignment. Certainly, such did not cause the MCTEP to be mothballed. There is no evidence whatsoever that the supposed “realignment" resulted in MCTEP becoming unnecessary as to require its being discontinued. Second. The MCTEP was not “scrapped" – more so, not because of the C5 Extension. To reiterate, the MCTEP and the C5 Extension are 2 different projects – that are not mutually exclusive of each other. More importantly, the construction of the MCTEP was not “scrapped" but was merely “stalled" because the Malaysian partner for the said project, Majilis Amanah Rakyat (MARA)/Renong Berhad, decided to pull out its investment in the UEM-Mara Phils. due to the Asian financial crisis. The progress in the road network has been held back as the UEM-Mara Phils. does not have enough funds to push it. Thus, as soon as needed funds are obtained, the MCTEP may still be continued. In fact, the Metro Pacific Investments Corp. (MPIC) has continuing discussions with the UEM-Mara Phils. for possible capital infusion to finance the project. (Malaya article entitled “MPIC eyes bigger stake in SLEX" published on 07 April 2009). Accordingly, since the project may still be pursued, the “multi-billion-peso payments by the government in road-right-of-way compensation" are not wasted. To this day, the roads acquired are still there and remain to be owned by the government. 3. There was NO “realignment" of the C5 Extension. The subject article was written on the wrong premise that there was a “realignment" of the C5 Extension. Interestingly, no evidence, documentary or testimonial, was cited in support, or as basis, thereof. That the road passed through properties owned by Villar companies is NOT sufficient basis to arrive at said conclusion especially since there is an uncontroverted document which disputes such allegation. The letter dated 15 October 2008 of DPWH Regional Director Roberto G. Lala, CESO III, to DPWH Secretary Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr. very clearly states: “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 the original 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) More importantly, during the entire SCOW proceedings nobody pointed to, or identified, an alternative alignment or route – a route that is “shorter" and “less costly" - that will not require the road to pass through the properties owned by Villar companies. Villar companies are engaged in real estate development primarily based in Las Pinas and, therefore, own tracts of land therein. Hence, it is not improbable that any main thoroughfare constructed within Las Pinas City would pass through its properties. Villar could not have prevented the construction of a very important road network simply because it will pass through the properties of his companies. We sincerely trust that our foregoing reply shall be afforded the same coverage and exposure as the article cited above. Sadly, aside from a reference to Sen. Villar’s C5 Primer, our position on the SCOW Report and on the interactive map was not obtained prior to the posting of the said article. Respectfully yours, Atty. Nalen Rosero-Galang Legal Counsel Sen. Manuel B. Villar, Jr.