This is one question hogging the news headlines lately.
But, is it the right question to ask? Shouldn’t the more appropriate question be: “What is the best use for a heritage structure that holds more than a century of Cebu City history?”
Unfortunately, the issue has never been seriously approached from that perspective. Instead, the question of legal ownership immediately gained paramount importance (never mind that the two claimants are both government instrumentalities). The default resolution to most conflicts, it seems, is to turn to legal remedies.
The parties to the case have resorted to legal wrangles in the courts. Reasoned thinking, broader analysis and logic have given way to dissecting finer legal points. The alternative question presented, if at all considered, remained almost irrelevant.
This is not surprising in a culture that is in awe of the legal profession and puts it on a pedestal. Witness the days of the bar examinations: partially closed streets and strict security in the vicinity of the test sites, troops of uniformed policemen, fire trucks, SWAT contingents. Board exams for the other professions apparently don’t merit the same royal treatment.
But that’s for another day’s discussion. Let’s go back to the issue at hand.
What does the Cebu Port Authority (CPA) plan to do with the Compania Maritima property? Will the plan align with its main mandate to develop and manage the operations of the Cebu port? Are they expanding the berthing areas southward towards the Cebu-Cordova Link Expressway (CCLEX)? Are they ready to rebuild the Compania Maritima structure and use it for administrative purposes? Or, does the CPA merely wish to sell the property and send the proceeds to the central coffers? At any rate, any CPA plan has to pass the total feasibility test and clear the economic, social and governance (ESG) hurdles. Additionally, it must fall within its avowed mandate. The CPA should not be, even by happenstance, in the real estate business.
On the other hand, the Cebu City government has a well defined plan (already under implementation) of making the Compania Maritima structure an integral part of the envisioned heritage district that will stretch from Plaza Independencia to Carbon market. This plan is modeled after successful redevelopment projects undertaken by numerous coastal and riverside communities abroad which convert old dockside areas into vibrant mixed-use pockets of shops, F&B establishments and entertainment outlets.
The heritage district project when completed will be a boon to residents and visitors alike. It will boost domestic and foreign tourism by showcasing yet another feature of Cebuano character and culture. Tourism is a pillar of the city’s economy. The heritage district project including the rehabilitation of the Compania Maritima property is one initiative that will certainly contribute to the sustainability of the local tourism sector. It will also allow Cebu City to continue playing a vital role in attaining national tourism targets, as has been its custom for the past few years now.
Talking about national economic plans, the CPA is well underway in fulfilling its own mandate to develop the Cebu port as part of the government’s plan to expand and modernize infrastructure in the country’s shipping industry. Cebu’s seaborne international trade will be conducted out of the Consolacion International Container Port, a Korean-assisted project, once it is completed. Domestic port operations will then shift to the site of the existing Cebu International Port. It is important to note that expansion is proceeding northwards and not in the opposite direction where the Compania Maritima property is located. By asserting its ownership rights to the property, the CPA must be prepared with a brilliant alternative plan for its development, one that should not stray far afield from its original mandate and one that can surpass, if not equal the economic benefits of the heritage district project of the city government.
Finally, both claimants belong to the same Philippine government, a single entity the last time I looked it up. Framing the issue as an exclusive legal matter renders it superfluous and avoids the broader and more relevant considerations of optimum land use, history, heritage and culture, not to mention increased economic activity and employment.