Wrong political philosophy

There is a virtual political battle field between the opposing camps of His Honor, Cebu City Mayor Michael L. Rama, and Hon. Tomas R. Osmeña, the Congressman of Cebu City South District. As a battlefield, this is quite unlike the shores of Iwo Jima where the American Forces lost the most number of its brave warriors to the guns of Japanese defenders in the second world war. But, it is some kind of a bloody war zone with the contrasting ideas of Mayor Rama and Cong. Osmeña serving as their weapons of choice.

I am referring to a very expensive piece of real estate owned by the city government. It is located at the North Reclamation Area where its neighboring lots are seats of high-end commercial enterprises. For our easy reference, this battle ground is designated as Block 27 by the newspapers for in fact, this is Block 27 of the reclamation area.

Today, Block 27 is the temporary relocation site of some families who were uprooted from somewhere along Mahiga Creek. Their previous homes were demolished to give way to a government project. The mayor thought of preventing the occurrence of floods, by dredging the river of its increasing amount of silt. The project could not be implemented without the houses of illegal settlers being removed. It was not legally impossible for the city government to have those houses scuttled because they were, in the first place, illegal structures.

Before the home owners settled on Mahiga Creek, they were aware that to occupy it was legally prohibited. The area was public domain and therefore beyond the commerce of man. Not even the excuse of establishing modest homes of the poor could justify the legal breach.

But, it did not matter to them. They had no property of their own where they could put up their homes to protect them from the ravages of nature. Oh, yes, there were some vacant parcels of land for sale but, asserting that they were poor, they could not afford the prices offered. So, they took the risk in putting up their structures on the supposition that their claim of poverty was a legitimate excuse for them to violate the law. They thought that because they belonged to the lower segment of society, it was alright to run afoul with the legal order.

When the city government started to implement its project of dredging the Mahiga Creek, the first among many to bear the brunt were those settlers of Mahiga Creek. In spite of the clarity of the objective of the project, the latter resisted. They would not leave the river banks unless offered a relocation site. They made their own personal act of violating the law as their justification for the continuance of their legal disobedience.

The city government relented. To expedite the project, the city allowed the settlers to move to a government property as temporary resettlement. It was, as it is, Block 27. And that was more than a year ago, according to city hall sources.

Lately, the city, faced with the task of clearing its expensive property, decided to let go the families that were relocated there. The city cannot allow the settlers to use this property to the detriment of the general public. If this lot has to be used by the city, it has to be cleared of settlers. Again the settlers refused.

The settlers of Block 27 would not vacate it for many reasons. As the news unraveled, one such compelling reason surfaced. While staying at this government lot free of any charge, they also do not pay for their bills for electric power consumption and water connections. These are paid for by city coffers from the taxes all of us pay. Pagkasuwerte nila. Gawas nga wa silay bayad sa paggamit sa yuta sa gobiyerno, libre pa ang ilang tubig ug kuryente. Sila ang nagamit og kuryente ug tubig, pero kitang tanan ang nagbayad.

In the steadfast refusal of these settlers to vacate Block 27, they found a patron in Congressman Osmeña. The lawmaker visited them lately and supported their continued occupancy of this government property. He even offered to shoulder such cost of the settlers’ living as the water bill. I do not doubt that this position of the legislator which is diametrically opposite to that of the mayor’s, is purely apolitical strategy. But I am sure who is espousing the wrong philosophy.