BCDA rejoinder to Pascual’s and Reyes’ columns

This letter is in response to the May 26, 2013 editions of Postscript by Federico Pascual Jr. (“47th SM mall caught in Taguig-BCDA feud”) and Hidden Agenda by Mary Ann Reyes (“Café fight”).

The authors of these columns have expressed their opinions on the ongoing issue between the BCDA and SM over the latter’s SM Aura mall. Clearly, Mr. Pascual and Ms. Reyes are deeply concerned about this matter, and we would like to take this opportunity to address the key points that they have raised.

The BCDA would like to clarify that when the BCDA conveyed the land to Taguig, the Deed of Conveyance was drafted in accordance with R.A. 7917. This means that the BCDA is not questioning the use of the land as long as it complies with R.A. 7917, and is within the parameters of civic use.

The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) had the same interpretation of the conveyance in its Opinion No. 017 dated January 21, 2011, stating that “Firstly, basic is the doctrine that laws are deemed incorporated in each and every contract […] Thus, the restrictions imposed by Sec. 1, R.A. 7917 overrides paragraph 5, Sec. 2 of the DOC.”

SM Aura also violates the Master Development Plan (MDP) for BGC that ensures the safety and convenience of the people living and working in the BGC.

The BCDA conveyed that land precisely so that the law may be fulfilled — otherwise, why would the institution convey it? That is approximately P5 billion worth of land, the bidding remittances of which would have gone to the AFP for its much-needed modernization.

Furthermore, in response to Ms. Reyes’  statement that BCDA “reportedly harassed SM staff and security to stop their business,” we wish to emphasize that despite BCDA’s denial of SM’s request to excavate BCDA-owned land beside SM Aura, SM destroyed the fence along McKinley Parkway Drive and unlawfully entered BCDA property. The excavation also endangered the lives of residents below the construction area due to the absence of a proper retaining wall, which SM has yet to address.

Our staff arrived at SM Aura on May 6, 2013 unarmed. Attached pictures show that our staff was clearly surrounded  by SM personnel and Taguig police officers, and could not possibly commit harassment. BGC security personnel who were also present at the site will attest to this.

And on Ms. Reyes’ remark that the BCDA is “anti-business,” we wish to point out that the lands that have been bid out by the agency have been transformed into thriving centers of growth.

Properties like BGC and Newport City are generating billions of pesos in revenues for the private sector, the government, and most especially the Armed Forces  of the Philippines, who are in dire need of modernization amidst escalating local and international crises.

We deeply appreciate Mr. Pascual’s and Ms. Reyes’ comments on this issue, but we fervently hope that our explanations and citations can address their concerns.

Than you very much, and we wish you all the best.