With or without Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s dare for a court battle on the disputes over the Metropolitan Cebu Water District and the Cebu City Zoo, the provincial government has been after all gearing its forces against the city’s fortress, ready to strike at any time.
The stirrings at the supposed battlefront are not in full throttle for now, and Governor Gwendolyn Garcia, when asked for a comment on the mayor’s statements made earlier, even remarked: “I’m too busy to comment on petty things.”
The Capitol, however, was not taking these matters petty for attention. Provincial attorney Marino Martinquilla, in a press conference yesterday, said that the provincial government will file within this week a case against Osmeña and other members of the MCWD Board for indirect contempt of court.
Martinquilla said that when the mayor appointed Joel Mari Yu to the board, and the board members in turn accepted the appointment, they committed an illegal act considering that the matter of appointment power is still pending in court.
The province has a pending case filed in court questioning the authority of Osmeña to appoint anyone to the board of directors of the MCWD.
“Daku kaayo nang tamparos sa husgado ang gihimo ni Tomas Osmeña. We will file a case against him not because iya ming gihagit but because we are just protecting the interest of the province,” said lawyer Rory Jon Sepulveda, Capitol consultant on information.
In the case of the City Zoo, the Capitol had its firing sights against Robert Yupangco, the man that Osmeña had negotiated for the development and management of the facility.
Martinquilla said he wrote Yupangco yesterday warning him from proceeding with the plans to develop the zoo in partnership with the Cebu City government.
The provincial attorney also informed Yupangco that the Capitol is the owner of the lot occupied by the zoo.
“Hence, no development on the same could be undertaken without the knowledge, consent and direct participation of the Province of Cebu,” said the letter, which was noted by the governor.
The letter further warned that if Yupangco still insists on pushing through with the development, Capitol will be forced to take all legal actions against him, and the city government. These actions would include the filing of charges in court and in other administrative bodies to protect the interests of the provincial government.
Martinquilla explained that the land occupied by the zoo comprises a total area of about 70,000 square meters, which is a portion of Lot No. 1298 that has a total area of 222,110 square meters.
Sometime in 1969, Lot No. 1298 and the adjacent Lot No. 1303 (area of 3,160 square meters), were donated by the province through a deed of donation executed by former governor, Rene Espina, in favor of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines.
Martinquilla, however, clarified that the portion of Lot no. 1298, where the zoo now sits, was excluded from the deed of donation as stated in paragraph 2 (c) of the document.
The said paragraph stated: “Part of Lot no. 1298, specifically the gully and ravine thereof as would give semblance of natural habitat for the captive zoo animals, covering approximately seven hectares, shall be excluded from the use of the donee, as the same is hereby set aside, for the use, operation and maintenance of the Cebu City Zoon which will have to be transferred from where it is at Fort San Pedro.”
Martinquilla said this provision clearly showed that the portion of the lot where the zoo is located remains under the ownership of the provincial government. This part was not included in the donation to the BSP and there is no other donation that yielded it from Capitol’s domain, he said.
There was also no donation to the City Zoo or to Cebu City, and even if the property was set aside for the use, operation, and maintenance of the City Zoo it has not in any manner affected Capitol’s right of ownership over the land, said Martinquilla.
Martinquilla further explained that the setting aside of the property for the use, operation, and maintenance of the City Zoo was a unilateral and gratuitous act of the provincial government. It only granted a benefit but did not vest any right in favor of the city government or any other person, he said.
“As such, the same could be unilaterally withdrawn by the province which may exercise its rights, as owner, of the subject property,” Martinquilla said.