Approximately 800 of the country’s richest and most influential business owners are facing the possibility of finding their “home sweet home” in Camp John Hay turn into Rocky Mountain homes if they are forced to renegotiate the lease or cost of ownership of their luxury cottages.
The BCDA already announced last week that the Supreme Court has stood by its decision for the John Hay Development Corp. (DEVCO) to return the property to the BCDA and for the BCDA to return the money of JH-DEVCO because both parties were in violation of contract.
The problem is that the SC decision, which has not been readily available to the public, was allegedly not as detailed in terms of how things are supposed to be done.
For instance, DEVCO had sold about 800 luxury cottages when they started the project and the 800 owners who represent the top corporations, CEOs-bosses and families were all buyers in good faith. JH-DEVCO was likewise a seller in good faith. So how do you tell the country’s richest and powerful groups that they may be evicted or will now have to renegotiate with the BCDA?
Does the Supreme Court expect JH-DEVCO to return the investments of those homeowners, minus the years of use or ownership?
The BCDA has actually come out with newspaper ads advising the owners to contact the BCDA, obviously to be informed that there is now a new landlord and that the rent or lease or terms will have to change, and they better bring their fat check books or be ready to arrange bank transfers.
The second complication involves compensation for JH-DEVCO. Will the BCDA give back only the bid payment of JH-DEVCO or are they also bound by the SC decision to pay back all the expenses made by the corporation as they developed properties and hotels, etc? Will that include the refund to homeowners if JH-DEVCO has to return payment?
Third, where will BCDA get the money to give back JH-DEVCO, given that the BCDA is not exactly rolling in cash and receivables? Will the BCDA be required to make payment on the court’s timetable or will it be a case of “pay when able?”
While all these headaches are swirling around, what the public has not heard are credible claims that certain people in government, particularly Malacañang, had a hand in the matter. Someone from Padre Faura confirmed what a friend from Baguio called as an unusual interest for the government to get back John Hay.
Exactly who in Malacañang has a special interest, and why, is now the subject of silent whispers. Is it simply a case of the government wanting to get a better deal or getting more? Will the renegotiation of 800 homes turn into a “networking opportunity” to win favor from the private sector? Or is there a group with a particular interest in the properties?
After the decision was handed down with finality, my sources claim that the BCDA was advised-instructed “by Malacañang” to issue eviction notices to the current owners of the luxury cottages. The idea, I presume, was to establish the government’s claim as well as shake up the current owners to make them more amenable to the renegotiation.
Fortunately, the BCDA officials opted to follow proper protocol by issuing public notices before sending out eviction notices, which remains a touchy matter given the social status and legal standing of the 800 homeowners. The question now is, why was someone in Malacañang so hands on during the hearings at the Supreme Court and the post judgment actions of the BCDA?
Meanwhile, the decision of the Supreme Court and the can of worms the issue has opened leaves a serious tale of caution to would-be investors or buyers in government projects. In the Philippines, a simple change of government midway of your project can run you out of town or triple your cost or a 10-year court battle to dislodge you.
You can be a seller or buyer in good faith but that is no legal guarantee of ownership. Contracts may stipulate the government’s obligation, but all the delay and consequential cost of money or lost opportunities will force you to undertake the government’s obligation. You could be well on your way when suddenly some mayor says stop because his campaign contributor asked him to realign a road, a highway or MRT nearer to his project.
Sadly, you cannot rely on the justice system either.
While studying the matter, I came to realize that unless you are the only game and player in town, working with government is as risky as playing in the casino or fighting in the cockpit.
While we all grew up believing that justice is done with eyes blindfolded, it is not necessarily inviolable for those in robes. They too are human, dependent or subject to a process designed by politicians and jurors and buttered by utang na loob or political pressure.
Starting from becoming a fiscal, an RTC judge, the Court of Appeals, a justice in the Supreme Court, all the way to Chief Justice, the procession to the halls and pillars require soliciting favor to get a seat, have a sala, endorsements, political backing, being part of a church, a cult or a fraternity to get the votes and ultimately the presidential signature.
Yes, they are men and women of merit, men and women of laws, but in the face of human reality, they too are subject to pressure. Their budgets are dependent on members of Congress, and in a nation fueled by “pakikisama,” sometimes holding up the scales of justice becomes a burden and the balance tilts for those in power.
* * *
Email: utalk2ctalk@gmail.com