CITY OF SAN FERNANDO – The People’s Task Force on Hanjin and Subic Bay Inc. (Hanjin Task Force) expressed their support for architect Felino Palafox “for exposing the planned cutting of some 366 trees to give way to another Korean project” at the Freeport.
However, they urged him to name the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) official who reportedly asked for an 18 percent commission on the project.
This, even as Hanjin Task Force chairman and chief executive officer Ramon Lacbain expressed fears that the project will push through anyway amid the alleged policy of SBMA to also act as its own environmental board.
“We hereby express our very strong support to Felino Palafox and commend him,” said a statement issued by Lacbain in behalf of his task force composed of some 1,500 members, mostly former and present workers of the Korean shipbuilder Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Philippines, Inc. (Hanjin).
“Mr. Palafox’s expose about the 18 percent commission being demanded by an SBMA executive in exchange for a business favor deserves an investigation by the both Houses of Congress or the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission in order to clear the names of many executives of SBMA ,” the statement said.
Palafox, a world renowned urban and environmental planner, junked a $1 million deal with a foreign architectural firm to design the Korean Ocean 9 Casino and Hotel Resort amid his refusal to cut 366 trees, some of them about 100 yeard old, at the project site.
“The project cannot be done without cutting down these trees. I will not stand for it, even if it means giving up $1 million. Why should I sell my soul and sign my name on a project that violates everything I stand for?” he said.
Lacbain, who had served three terms as vice governor of Zambales, said that “unless the immediate and proper investigation is done and Mr. Falafox identifies that corrupt executive, every executive inside the SBMA is a suspect”.
“I don’t believe everyone does that in SBMA – to demand commission from locators in SBMA in exchange for permits, licenses or authorities to operate,” he noted.
The statement lauded Palafox’s “sacrifice to part from that $1 million contract out of his principles”, as well as his “expose of corruption in SBMA”, but expressed fears that the Korean project would push through anyway amid the claim of SBMA administrator and chief executive officer Armand Arreza that the site is within the commercial zone where development can be done at the freeport.
“That was what happened when the Hanjin condominiums were built without the required environmental compliance certificate from the very beginning. It was too late to stop the project when the controversy erupted because the buildings were almost complete despite clash with the interest of our environment and violation of Philippine laws,” Lacbain noted.
He recalled that during the Senate probe on the Hanjin condominiums, SBMA officials insisted that the SBMA board also served as Protected Area Management Board (PAMB).
It was also countered by Sen. Pia Cayetano, former chairperson of Senate environment committee, who said the PAMB must be a separate body with representatives from the private sector and the non-government organizations.
“If SBMA has nothing to hide and its officials are really serious in implementing environmental laws, rules and regulations then they must create an independent PAMB. Then the SBMA board can focus on the environmental issues," he said.
Lacbain also recalled that in paving the way for the Hanjin shipbuilding project, mountains were blasted, part of Subic Bay was reclaimed and a neary river was quarried also without any environmental clearance certificate.
Palafox had emphasized that the trees could not be included in the development plan as proposed by SBMA, project proponent Grand Utopia and the foreign architect as several levels of basement parking could not be done around trees.
He also called on the Professional Regulation Commission to find out why a foreign architectural firm is being allowed to practice architecture in the country, contrary to the Architect’s Law.
