|
Monday, March 29, 2004
Vergara vows to rescind city-Jadewell parking MOA
BAGUIO City Mayor Bernardo Vergara vowed to rescind the controversial pay- parking memorandum of agreement once the MOA reached the fifth year of its enforcement.
"But if the City wins the rescission case, no ifs and buts, I will rescind the Jadewell MOA," he declared during the "Know your Candidate" forum at People's Park sponsored by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Cordillera Association of Regional Executives (Care).
He added that "since the legality of the ordinance and the MOA had been upheld by the court, I am more inclined at this time to re-negotiate with Jadewell for better terms for the city, while we strive to win our pending rescission court case with the parking company."
The city-Jadewell MOA was entered into between Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan when he was still the mayor, and Jadewell president Rogelio Tan last June 26, 2000. The controversy started sometime November or December that same year when the council started looking for the list of city roads and streets, referred to as Annex A, covered by the operation.
Public Utilities and Services Officer (Puso) Oscar Flores last February told members of the council Annex A was just a "shopping list" of possible parking areas in the city.
Flores, who was then the chair of the city's Traffic and Transportation Management Committee when the MOA was approved, added that the list of 44 streets and roads submitted to the city early 2000 (and later) to a council committee chaired by then Councilor Nicasio Palaganas, bore his handwritten parking specifications and remarks.
But he stressed the document was only a "shopping list" of parking spaces available in the city and not the purported Annex A itself, reason why it was not signed in the first place although he admitted preparing the list as requested.
Some members of the council have maintained that the MOA was confirmed by the former City Council, through Resolution 205-2000 passed last July 17, 2000, without the 'Annex A' attached to the MOA.
City Hall insiders also marveled at how the former council was able to confirm the MOA without even checking if the Annex A was indeed attached.
The present council voted to rescind the pay-parking agreement on Nov. 21, 2001. The case is now with the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, council members also debated on whether or not to push through with overriding Vergara's veto of Resolution 59-2004, demanding the return of the Ganza parking lot and other parking areas in Burnham Park from Jadewell's control to the City Government.
Although the councilors share the opinion that Jadewell's supplemental contract with the city government over Ganza operations is indeed flawed and that the city government has the right to regain control of the parking lot, the aldermen were divided on whether overriding the mayor's veto was indeed the best way to reclaim Ganza and to prove that the supplemental contract allowing Jadewell to operate at Ganza was indeed null and void.
Councilor Edilberto Tenefrancia, who was earlier tasked by the body to prepare the overriding resolution, opined that overturning the mayor's move might be useless considering that the rejected resolution calls for acting city legal officer Melchor Carlos Rabanes to file judicial proceedings against the pay parking firm.
Rabanes already opined against the proposed vouncil action and even suggested that the council "finds other less draconian yet more effective means" of dealing with its impasse with Jadewell.
In his opinion, Rabanes said the council's move might spawn another legal case from Jadewell as the Ganza supplemental contract is an offshoot of the principal Jadewell-city payparking deal which at present is the subject of a court case. "We may invite another contempt charge as what had happened when the aforesaid case was yet in the Court of Appeals."
"My position that the Jadewell contract was null and void has not changed.
However, if we override the mayor's veto, it will mean that we will direct the CLO to file the judicial proceedings which he is not inclined to do based on the opinion he earlier manifested so it is better that we do not override and just let anyone file the case," Tenefrancia explained.
Some councilors, however, feel the council can still push through with the move to override the mayor's veto to jumpstart the reacquisition of the Ganza parking lot, saying the CLO is duty-bound to comply with the task given to him as mandated by the law.
The body, however, decided to suspend action on the issue until this week when they expect to have complete attendance.
Resolution 59, the disputed measure, demands Jadewell to turn over Ganza within 30 days and directed the CLO to file judicial proceedings against the pay parking firm claiming that the supplemental contract allowing Jadewell to operate at Ganza was never approved for confirmation by tile city council and therefore was null and void.
Vergara vetoed the resolution on the basis of Rabanes's comments.
"Jadewell and the council appear to be poles apart. Lawsuits, a number of them, have not bridged their gap; their relationship has instead gone to a quagmire, thus a way to wiggle out has to loom somewhere. But with another lawsuit in the offing, heralded by the enactment of Resolution 59, the relationship gone sour may sink to deeper recesses. The gap is not unbridgeable, the differences are not irreconcilable; it just takes the collective wisdom of the body to find other less draconian yet more effective means to resolve the impasse," Rabanes stressed. (Cheryl G. Cruz/With Aileen Refuerzo)
(March 29, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
