Amid repeated appeals for an ultimate resolution of issues in Camp John Hay (CJH), the Baguio City Council will create a task force or a special committee to thoroughly examine all unresolved matters and formulate a comprehensive plan of action.
The creation of this special committee is crucial in resolving longstanding problems such as the “unfulfilled” 19 conditionalities, particularly the lack of implementation of the revenue-sharing agreement and the segregation of the 13 barangays within the CJH Reservation.
The committee will study the issues at hand, consider all suggestions, and draft a resolution for the city council’s approval.The composition and specific mandate of the committee will be subject to further discussion in the future.
During the special session on August 29, 2024, members of the city council expressed concern that the 19 conditionalities, which were established through City Council Resolution 362-1994 for the formulation of the CJH Master Development Plan, are not given sufficient importance by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).
Vice Mayor Faustino Olowan said the continuous struggle that the City of Baguio has faced with the 19 conditionalities had persisted through multiple presidential administrations, starting from President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, through the terms of Presidents Benigno Aquino III, Rodrigo Duterte, and now under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Olowan expressed hope that, under the current administration, progress can be made to resolve these longstanding issues.
Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda sought clarification from the BCDA on whether they acknowledge and accept the 19 conditionalities. She stressed that many CJH issues faced by the City of Baguio stem from these conditions.
Atty. Maria Celine Erika Labrador, BCDA’s legal counsel, said that the BCDA is currently evaluating the 19 conditionalities and acknowledged that some have been complied with, but due to supervening events like pending legal cases, the full implementation is still under review by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel. Despite this claim that some conditionalities had been fulfilled, Labrador could not specify which ones as she did not have pertinent records with her at that time.
Tabanda emphasized that the Supreme Court ruling in the case between the BCDA and the city government referenced two of the 19 conditionalities (Conditions 9 and 10), which she viewed as an implicit recognition. She suggested that the BCDA should accept the entire set of conditionalities, as they appear to have been implicitly acknowledged by the Court.
Condition No. 9 mandates that the BCDA provide an equitable revenue-sharing arrangement, where the city government receives 3% of the gross income from operations within the John Hay Special Economic Zone (JHSEZ). Additionally, 1% should be allocated to a community development fund jointly administered by the city government and BCDA. This means that the BCDA should allocate a total of 4% of the gross income from operations within the JHSEZ under Section 9 (Condition No. 9) in favor of Baguio City.
The amount to be paid by BCDA under Condition No. 9 is P56,843,842.08. No payment has been done under this condition.
In addition to this revenue sharing, Condition No. 10 specifies that the BCDA must allocate 25% of its lease rentals or 30% of its net income from its operations within the JHSEZ, whichever is higher.
An outstanding balance of P168,608,109.60 has yet to be collected under Condition No. 10. This indebtedness was computed based on the lease payments of CJH Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) to BCDA, a far cry from the P930 million outstanding balance calculated by the City Treasurer’s Office up to 2020 based on the terms of the lease agreement between BCDA and CJHDevCo.
Labrador pointed out that the SC ruling primarily focused on the city government’s authority to impose business permits on CJH locators, not on the full set of conditionalities.
The SC ruling in question pertains to the Court’s decision over a case between the city government and the BCDA over whether businesses operating within JHSEZ are required to obtain business permits and pay associated fees, specifically the mayor’s permit fee, as mandated by the city’s tax ordinance. The SC ultimately ruled in favor of the city government, stating that the mayor’s permit fee is a regulatory fee, not a local tax, and therefore businesses in the JHSEZ must comply with the city’s business permit requirements.
Engr. Bobby Akia, JHMC’s building official, said the 19 conditionalities had not been included in the Master Development Plan for CJH, a revelation that surprised Tabanda who stated that the 19 conditionalities had been a prerequisite for the city council’s approval of the declaration of the CJH as a Special Economic Zone.
Tabanda requested a commitment from the BCDA and the JHMC to incorporate these conditionalities into the Master Development Plan during its review.
However, Atty. Kristoffer Dance, member of the JHMC Board of Directors (BOD), explained that such a commitment cannot be made immediately as it requires approval from both BCDA BODs and the JHMC BODs. He assured the city council that their request will be communicated to these relevant bodies.
Labrador said there is a need to review records to confirm whether the 19 conditionalities had been included in the previous Master Development Plan.
Councilor Peter Fianza expressed concern regarding the ongoing efforts by the BCDA and the JHMC to segregate the barangays within the CJH. He said the segregation process seems to focus only on home lots (residential areas) rather than the entire barangay areas.
According to Fianza, the original intention under Condition No. 14 was to segregate the entire barangay areas from the CJH area, not just the home lots.
Councilor Jose Molintas criticized the BCDA for seemingly disregarding the 19 conditionalities, particularly Condition No. 14, and for negotiating the sale of lots directly with barangays which he described as a “divide-and-rule” tactic.
Molintas pointed out that the BCDA’s approach, modeled after the situation in Scout Barrio Barangay where only the footprints of houses were sold to residents, is not acceptable for other barangays. He argued that this approach leaves the remaining land unaddressed which should be avoided in future negotiations.
“You [BCDA] will get all the sales out of the lands but you will leave all the problems to the City,” Molintas stated.
He further questioned whether the BCDA and the JHMC have the authority to negotiate or whether they must follow the directives from the Office of the President. He also alleged that there is a lack of transparency on the part of the BCDA and the JHMC in negotiating with the barangays, further claiming that neither the mayor nor the other city officials had been invited to participate in discussions about the pricing of lots. This, according to him, undermines the city’s authority and the residents’ trust.
The councilor expressed concern that if negotiations for the sale of land by the BCDA to the 13 barangays continue, the proceeds may be directed to the BCDA as specified by the City Charter. He suggested suspending the land sale until the issue of how the proceeds will be allocated is resolved.
Despite these criticisms, Molintas expressed hope for a partnership between the city government and the BCDA/JHMC. However, he insisted that this partnership must be based on transparency and active participation from the affected communities to ensure that their voices are heard and their rights are protected.
With regard to the sale of lots, Fianza clarified that, despite the provision of RA 7227 and any amendments, JHMC does not have the authority to collect payments or impose charges for land transactions. He referred to Proclamation No. 64 which defined the terms and conditions for land transactions in the Scout Barrio area. According to this proclamation, land could only be given or sold to qualified applicants or occupants and that JHMC must wait for a new presidential proclamation that specifically authorizes the sale of these unoccupied areas.
Akia said that the JHMC, in collaboration with the BCDA, is conducting profiling based on historical censuses from 1991, 2000, and 2012-2013 to identify current structure owners in the concerned barangays.
The JHMC building official said the segregation process undertaken by BCDA involves individual land surveys where properties are demarcated from the BCDA land, however, common areas like roads, creeks, and open spaces will remain under BCDA ownership.
He clarified that the land awards process in Hillside Barangay is similar to what occurred in Scout Barrio where residents were involved in identifying their property boundaries during the survey, disputing claims that only the building footprint would be awarded.
Councilor Fred Bagbagen advised that while discussions with barangay officials are ongoing, any decisions made related to the segregation of barangays must still be approved by the city government as these barangays are an integral part of the city. He warned against premature actions or agreements without proper consultation with the local government unit.
Bagbagen also expressed concern about how a barangay can effectively govern if its authority is undermined by the BCDA’s jurisdiction over parts of the CJH reservation. He questioned how the BCDA’s control can be reconciled with the barangay’s supreme authority as mandated by law.
Meanwhile, Allan Bandoy, Hillside Punong Barangay, bemoaned the stalling of the segregation of their barangay from the CJH area. He said they had been waiting for decades, with residents passing away while waiting for this opportunity. He added that the current offer for segregation by the BCDA/JHMC is seen as a long-awaited opportunity that the barangay is eager to accept.
Several city council members mentioned House Bill No. 9428 which seeks to declare certain parcels of land within the CJH Reservation Area alienable and disposable. This bill, when passed, will allow qualified residents within these areas to legally own their respective occupied portions by obtaining titles.
The 13 barangays to benefit from the said measure are Camp 7, Country Club Village, Greenwater, Happy Hallow, Hillside, Apugan-Loakan, Loakan-Liwanag, Loakan Proper, Lower Dagsian, Lucnab, Sta. Escolastica Village, Scout Barrio, and Upper Dagsian.
The city council previously expressed reservations on this proposed measure, arguing that there is a need to carefully study it before its implementation as it may negatively impact these 13 barangays.
Attending the forum midway, Mayor Benjamin Magalong clarified that the BCDA, under the leadership of then-President Vince Dizon, had expressed willingness to pursue the segregation of the barangays but set a condition that each barangay subject to segregation needed to prepare a master development plan. Unfortunately, this condition had not been met by the barangays which created a delay or obstacle in the segregation process, Magalong said.
Acknowledging the importance of having a master development plan, Magalong said the city government had been actively engaging with the BCDA to seek technical assistance to help these barangays develop their master development plans.
Fianza, however, expressed a different view, stating that Condition No. 14 does not mention the need for a barangay development plan for exclusion purposes.
“If we refer to Resolution 362-1994, it does not mention that requirement. Where did this requirement originate? While it is beneficial for every barangay to have a development plan, it is not mandated for the purposes of exclusion,” Fianza stated.
Magalong further claimed that one of the BCDA’s conditions was that, once the segregation occurred, only the lots occupied by residents would be segregated while the open spaces would be retained by the BCDA. He appealed to the BCDA and JHMC to turn over these open spaces to the city government instead of retaining them as BCDA properties. He assured them that the LGU is fully capable of managing these open spaces, emphasizing the city’s commitment to livability and environmental sustainability with a specific goal of achieving a 75:25 ratio between open spaces and built-up areas.
IPMR Maximo Edwin Jr. raised concerns about ongoing violations related to illegal constructions within the CJH. He questioned why the City Buildings and Architecture Office (CBAO) continues to receive complaints about these violations despite ongoing negotiations about segregation. He noted that complaints were being filed, often signed by security guards, without proper validation by higher authorities.
Akia explained that illegal constructions are still being monitored and that complaints are filed when necessary. He also mentioned that part of the area is under forest watershed protection. He emphasized that JHMC is concerned with safety, especially since some constructions are happening in dangerous zones.
The JHMC building official said the JHMC is working on a review of their policies especially on repairs of structures and is coordinating with the city government to manage these issues better.
He also mentioned that the JHMC is working closely with the City Planning Development and Sustainability Office (CPDSO) to ensure that the barangay segregation plans align with the city’s overall development plan.
JHMC Board of Director Chair Junie Cua acknowledged the frustrations of the city officials and added that he, too, shares these frustrations. However, he pointed out that the JHMC does not have decision-making authority over the property and that the ultimate authority and policy decisions rest with the BCDA as the property owner.
Cua explained that their role is limited to managing the property based on the policies set by the BCDA. He said they are often expected to resolve issues that are beyond their control or authority which adds to the frustration of all stakeholders involved including the city government and the local communities.
Cua acknowledged that there are still many unresolved issues including the 19 conditionalities that need to be addressed. He recognized that these are complex and sensitive matters which is why BCDA is taking a careful approach to reviewing them.
In 2023, then-JHMC President Allan Garcia expressed interest in a dialogue between JHMC/BCDA and the city government on CJH issues. At that time, it was suggested that panels be created from both sides to facilitate discussions. However, no formal invitation for such a dialogue had been initiated by the JHMC/BCDA, possibly due to changes in administration.
During the August 29 session, representatives of the JHMC and the BCDA said both entities are interested in pursuing the dialogue with the city government to address these issues. **Jordan G. Habbiling
