MMDA on BF car “sticker” conflict: clueless

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chairman Bayani F. Fernando was quoted as saying that “all roads are public property” and that “even roads in private residential areas are no longer considered private, according to law” on the question of issuance of car “stickers” of private subdivisions, particularly BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision.

The kind of things the chairman is talking about is not trivial to me. They have driven me to disgust and near despair in the recent years.

After having scrimped and saved and then spent my life savings for a house in BF Homes Parañaque in order to enjoy well-deserved peace and quiet away from the madding crowd, I find the same madding crowd practically in my front yard, complete with cars, container vans, heavy trucks and squatters to boot.

The MMDA Chairman is quoted as saying: “All roads are normally open. The closing of roads require public hearings. A road is no longer private. Any road customarily used as a road is public.”

Good grief! The Chairman is clueless.

The takeover by the local government of the subdivision roads of BF Homes subdivision is patently illegal. The roads, sidewalks, parks and open spaces are privately titled to the developer. As such, the local government cannot simply take over private property without due process. In the words of the Supreme Court in Phicomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 “[a]ny regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection of the laws.”

On the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes, this is what the Supreme Court said in the case G.R. No. 148357 Aniano A. Albon vs. Bayani F. Fernando, et al:

“The ruling in the 1991 White Plains Association decision relied on by both the trial and appellate courts was modified by this Court in 1998 in White Plains Association v. Court of Appeals. Citing Young v. City of Manila, this Court held in its 1998 decision that subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation.”

“Section 335 of RA 7160 is clear and specific that no public money or property shall be appropriated or applied for private purposes. This is in consonance with the fundamental principle in local fiscal administration that local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.”

“In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure: it is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the State resulting from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business does not justify their aid by the use of public money.”

“Therefore, the use of LGU funds for the widening and improvement of privately-owned sidewalks is unlawful as it directly contravenes Section 335 of RA 7160. This conclusion finds further support from the language of Section 17 of RA 7160 which mandates LGUs to efficiently and effectively provide basic services and facilities. The law speaks of infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the LGU and “which are funded out of municipal funds.” It particularly refers to “municipal roads and bridges” and “similar facilities.”

“Applying the rules of ejusdem generis, the phrase “similar facilities” refers to or includes infrastructure facilities like sidewalks owned by the LGU. Thus, RA 7160 contemplates that only the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of infrastructure facilities owned by the LGU may be bankrolled with local government funds.”

The issuance of vehicular stickers is not just an excuse to “raise funds”. In BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision, stickers serve as traffic volume regulator and computer data banks (of about 40,000 motorists) provide immediate identification of the criminal elements in our midst.

As to collection of fees, Rule V, Section 5 of the HLURB Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Association (series of 2004) recognizes the right of homeowners association to impose and collect reasonable fees on members and non-members residents who avail of or benefit from the facilities and services of the association, to defray necessary operation expenses; and to exercise other powers necessary for the governance and operation of the association.

The conflict in BF Homes started in 1997 with the re-zoning of the subdivision’s main roads to raise revenues for the municipality to qualify for cityhood being pushed by Congressman Roilo Golez. Yet today, like the biblical fence-sitter of old, he washes his hands of the responsibility for the destruction of the residential character of our neighborhood.

Be that as it may, this is my unsolicited advice to BF homeowners: Don’t take a politician’s statements at face value. “Since a politician never believes what he says, he is surprised when others believe him.” [Charles de Gaulle, one-time President of France].

More unsolicited advice: If you do care about all this nonsense, what can you do? Well, you have to speak up and make time to fight a guerrilla war. Write letters and emails of protest. Telephone their offices. Politicians may be sloppy about spending our tax money, but they fear negative publicity. There’s political power in numbers. Get your friends involved in the action.