C5 PRIMER

WHAT IS THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROAD (C5) PROJECT?

ANSWER: The C5 Road Project is a project of the national government to provide a network of roads geared at helping the Filipino commuters.

C5 Road was renamed President Carlos P. Garcia Avenue under Republic Act No. 8224 which was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on 24 July 1996 and 30 September 1996, respectively.

QUESTION:

The alignment of the C5 Road starts at the junction of Letre Road and Dagat-dagatan in Navotas and Malabon and will pass through Valenzuela, Quezon City, Pasig, Makati, Taguig, Parañaque, SLEX & Merville, Las Piñas and terminates at R1 (Manila-Cavite Coastal Road), with an approximate length of 51 kilometers.

Construction of the C5 Road started in 1986. Of the entire stretch, 32.5 kilometers are fully developed, covering Malabon and Caloocan going all the way to Quezon City- Taguig/Pateros. Ongoing construction will complete the Parañaque-Las Piñas-Cavite portion.

The C5 Road Project is NOT a personal project of Senator Manny Villar. He is, however, an ardent supporter of the Project considering the benefit that will redound not only to his constituents in Las Pinas City but to the millions of people that will be able to utilize the said road.

DID VILLAR CAUSE THE DOUBLE INSERTION OR DOUBLE APPROPRIATION OF P200M FOR THE C5 PROJECT?

ANSWER:

VILLAR has already been cleared by Sen. Enrile then head of the Senate Committee on Finance.

There was no double appropriation for while the appropriation was for the same C5 Project, it was for 2 different portions of the said project. The first P200M was for the Sucat Flyover; while the second P200M was for the Coastal Flyover.

QUESTION:

NO.

The First P200 M goes to Sucat Rd. flyover

Additional P200 Mgoes to Coastal flyover

Sucat Road

NAIA

road

Flyover 1Sucat Road

Flyover2Coastal Road Co

asta

l Roa

d

SLEX

DID VILLAR CAUSE THE C5 ROAD EXTENSION TO BE DIVERTED TO DELIBERATELY PASS THROUGH THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY VILLAR CORPORATION?

ANSWER:

QUESTION:

NO.

a) The alignment of the on-going C5 Road Project is the originally identified DPWH alignment.

b) The alleged “original alignment” is actually the alignment of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project (the “MCTEP”), which is an entirely different project from the C5 Road Project.

In other words, there are 2 separate projects with different alignments.

c) The MCTEP is a project of the Toll Regulatory Board (“TRB”) under concession with UEM-Mara Phils.; while the C5 Road is a project of the national government through the DPWH.

MCTEP is a “toll expressway” which requires payment of toll fees; while the C5 Road is a “national road” which allows free passage of all commuters.

MCTEP and C5 Road may be pursued and implemented independently of each other.

DPWH LETTER dtd

10.15.08 

DPWH LETTER dtd

10.15.08 

Except for such shifting of the Bridge No. 2, no more modification was made from the original alignment up to its construction phases from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Avenue.

DPWH LETTER dtd

10.15.08 

C5 Project

MCTEP

DID THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY VILLAR CORPORATIONS AT A GROSSLY OVER- PRICED AMOUNT?

ANSWER: NO.

QUESTION:

a) Villar properties traversed by the C5 Road Project were acquired at their zonal values as certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

The valuation of properties acquired by the Government for public use is fixed by law. There is no room or opportunity for landowners to negotiate the price at which their properties will be taken.

Valuation parameters is set by Administrative Order No. 50 and Republic Act No. 8974.

c) There is nothing illegal for the receipt of payment for properties taken by the Government. Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation”.

d) BRITTANY Property is NOT adjacent to PLAZA Property

BRITTANY Property has a higher valuation because it has 56.11 square meter-frontage along Sucat Avenue, while PLAZA Property is an interior lot.

e) Masaito lot was valued at P30K per square meter because it has 139.09 meter frontage along Sucat Road.

This is to certify the zonal value of the commercial property located in Real St.Barangay Pulang Lupa Uno, vicinity of Perpetual Village is Php 13,300.00 based on the Revised Zonal Valuation 1996.

P4,000/sq.m.

P15,000/sq.m.

P4,000/sq.m.

P4,000/sq.m.

P30,000/sq.m.

IS SEN. VILLAR REQUIRED TO “DIVEST” UNDER THE LAW?

ANSWER:

QUESTION:

NO.

Sec. 12, Article VI of the Constitution provides: “All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors.”

The only requirement provided in Section 12 is the full disclosure of financial and business interests of all members of the Senate. There is no prohibition against members of Congress from having “financial and business interest”.

Article VI (on Legislative Department) of the Constitution does not provide for the same prohibition imposed on the Executive Department. The most logical reason for the same is that the legislative members act as collegial body. On the contrary, said officers of the Executive Department could approve deals or contracts based on their sole discretion.

IS THERE A “CONFLICT OF INTEREST”?

ANSWER:

QUESTION:

NONE.

a) Under the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, “Conflict of Interest” occurs when the official or employee is a substantial stockholder of a corporation and the interest of such corporation are opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.

Insofar as the C5 Project is concerned, Sen. Villar’s performance of his functions as a public official was not affected by, and is certainly not opposed to, his interests in the subject corporations. At the very least, there was “confluence” of interest, but definitely not “conflict” of interest.

b) More importantly, in an Opinion dated 09 November1999, the Department of Justice said that “the acquisition by the government of Villar properties for right of way purposes does not fall within the constitutional prohibition under Sec. 14, Art. VI. The acquisition is but a necessary consequence of the exercise by TRB and DPWH of its power to condemn private property for public use subject to the provisions of existing law”.

c) Mere material or financial interest on the part of a government official in a private enterprise DOES NOT per se bar the said enterprise from entering in some contract with a government office or agency. It must be such as to afford opportunity for misuse of the official influence by Members of Congress.

Considering that the determination of the value of the properties affected by public roads is fixed by law (under AO No. 50 and RA No. 8974) – there is hardly any room left for the discretion of DPWH and/or TRB, and no opportunity is presented for the temptation to employ official influence on the part of Villar in order to enhance his private or personal gain.

In other words, the possibility of misuse of official prestige and influence, which is the underlying ratio behind the constitutional prohibition, is wanting.

That possibility and opportunity is absent because the need to enter into the contract for the acquisition of road right of way and the determination of its terms and stipulations required no exercise of discretion by a government official.

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

DOJ OPINION

ON THE “PROJECT PROFILE”

a) On Villar named as “Proponent”:

It is a common practice in DPWH to reflect the names of the elected officials where the project is located.

b) On “Revision of Plan / Alignment” and “Revised Alignment Approved”:

The revised alignment referred to as “approved” is the slight shifting of the bridge alignment in order not to create conflict with the LRT Line 1 South Extension Project.

c) On “City Government of Las Pinas together with the Staff from the Office of the proponent had negotiated the land owners affected by the RROW”:

As a matter of policy of the DPWH, the implementing office is required to coordinate and request assistance if needed with the concerned congressmen, LGUs if only to ensure the smooth implementation of infrastructure projects located in their respective area of jurisdiction.

END OF PRESENTATION