METROPOST


JULY 18 - JULY 24, 2021 7 BEN S. MALAYANG III my take beniiim@icloud.com F


riendship is readiness to help and support a friend.


But here’s the rub: Helping


goes beyond affirming. Supporting goes beyond agreeing. Helping a friend (both friends, both sides) also requires carefully considering each other’s possible folly. This, so that a friend (both friends, both sides) would not fall. Supporting includes a friend (each friend, both sides) assuming a moral commitment to save the other from foolishness. Affirming without


thinking, and agreeing without committing to disagree, would not be friendship.


Neither would be insisting that one friend agree with the other. That’d be facilitating failure (for both friends, for both sides), and a friend’s downfall (both friends, both sides).


The tragedy is this: Some


people require their “friends” to blindly follow or agree with them. Those who don’t are to be deemed foes. Wrong. Friendship that requires unscrutinized support (to an


act or to an opposing view) translates to abetting mutual failures. It’d be a conspiracy to commit catastrophe. It’s “criminal neglect” of due diligent care.


Saying no and pointing


out a friend’s folly is hard because it hurts (both you and your friend). But shirking from doing


it could be disastrous (to you and your friend).


The heart of friendship I refer here to a hurt that has


a heart because – and this is my take with apologies to an old song – without a hurt (that has a heart), the heart of friendship would be weak and prone to just suddenly stop.


Those unwilling to helpfully hurt a friend would not be a friend. Neither are those unwilling to be hurt by their friends.


Seeking their friendship would be foolish. They’ll never be a friend unless you agree to an asymmetric relationship of lord and liege. The heart of friendship is mutual respect. Never otherwise.


JG UMBAC THE WAY IT IS bjplug@gmail.com


midst all that’s going on in Dumaguete now—the intense discussions about the City’s proposed island—among the lawyers, scientists, environmentalists, the media, the clergy, all who oppose it, and those to are for it, there are still human struggles that go on around us. I want to write about my friend’s struggle in this pandemic, as hot a topic as the island, which I believe is timelier and more important. It was in the afternoon that I received a text message from a friend, telling me that one of our buddies was taken to the hospital because of a stroke. I was heavily struck by the news because not a year ago, a cousin of mine died under similar conditions. I never had the opportunity to see my cousin conscious


A


before he died, and I wished to heaven he came back for a moment just so I could. I was so devastated that for a time after that, I could see him sitting among us, his family and friends. Whenever the friends gathered, we kept a chair empty for him, so he can sit down and join us. We all miss him so much, what with his contagious laughter and outrageous jokes. But such is life.


I couldn’t believe the text I got about my friend. I felt it like a sucker punch, rendering my emotions way off balance. How could this be, I thought, I haven’t seen him in weeks, and I have to tell him that, as a friend, he meant so much to me. Why does He take the good and kind ones first?


I called the friend who sent the text, hoping that the words ‘stroke’ and ‘unconscious’ were erroneous; that he was already sitting on the edge of his hospital bed, drinking his cup of orange juice.


It crushed me to hear that he was still unconscious, and that he might not make it— that dreaded 50-50 prognosis. For a moment, a very different world flashed in my mind, one without him, one without the warmth of his friendship. Just last year, he mourned my cousin’s passing with us. In fact, he was the first non-family who came to the funeral home, even before the official wake. He is a true friend. How dare the powers up there to take him, I thought. I later asked Him for forgiveness for my blasphemous thought. I received periodic texts to keep me abreast of our buddy’s situation. More tests were done on him, and the final diagnosis was COVID-19. That treacherous prick, I thought. Why my friend, of all people?!


Then word came that he was intubated. He couldn’t breathe on his own. I’m no doctor but I’ve seen people intubated all the way to death. Intubation is sometimes understood to be a last-ditch, albeit temporary effort to save a patient. I was now hoping against all odds that he’d make it. How big was my influence on fate, I wondered. Hopefully bigger than the odds against my friend. I wasn’t alone in hoping. All his friends were praying and hoping. Suddenly, it was us who were not ready to be without him.


With the current quarantine status, and whatever other future status might be imposed, I’ve expressed hope there would be a chance for all of us, his friends and him, to get together yet again. I called my texting friend to tell him that should our buddy make it, the first get-together would be on me, food and drinks. Then I


would give our dear buddy a great big hug because I love him. After all, when we lose people we love, we always wish that they never left. Well, if that wish were ever granted, what would we do? He was in the hospital in that bad shape for almost two weeks, and every time I received an update, it was that he was still out of this world. All we could do every time news came of his condition, which didn’t seem to improve, was hope harder than ever before. He was still in the Intensive Care Unit, the update would would say. Then one day, an unbelievable text appeared on my phone: HE OPENED HIS EYES. It was the culmination of all the wishing and hoping. Finally, it seemed that a whole bunch of people could


From the clutches of death


influence fate after all. Then he awoke longer, until he was transferred to a regular ward. I even spoke to him a few times while he was there. I didn’t mention anything else except that we would get together once he has fully recovered. I have that big hug still saved up for him. We always express regret, for something or other, when a loved one leaves this world. We feel this great, great pain, and would wish that the next day they’d be with us—that they never left us. But that only ushers us into the reality that, yes, they are gone, and we are left deeper in grief. Because of this, I have promised to hug my friend, to thank the heavens for him. For my friend to have escaped the clutches of death is way more than I could ever ask from Him. I consider it a gift of a lifetime.


With the way it is in the world, how many times can we hope to receive such a gift?


So, to cement friendship in our community while having a difficult conversation on a common concern, I believe there’s no better civil option than this: in good faith and with pristine intentions and honesty, let’s sit down and discuss why we’re each doing what we are doing, why we’re each thinking what we are thinking, why we think what we do or say is right, and why we think what others do or say is not right.


We’ ll question and


be questioned, and challenge and be challenged.


This, because we each have our truths that could turn out untrue, and which when corrected would save us from catastrophic consequences. Once we agree on what’s right and what’s wrong, and what are truths and untruths, we can plod on towards a better future. A future that we agree is best for us all, according to what we agree what best would be.


If we don’t agree? Then we give some, and take some because in Dumaguete, we’re all friends. Neither one lord, neither


one liege. GOLDA S. BENJAMIN


COFFEE & CONVERSATIONS


goldabenjamin@gmail.com


An Open Letter to my students at the Silliman University College of Law


I start the semester by presenting to you four boxes, and I tell you that in your lives as future lawyers, you will encounter moments when you have to assess your decisions based on where they fall among these four boxes: Legal and Right Legal but Wrong Not legal but Right Not legal and Wrong


Your stand on Dumaguete Mayor Felipe Antonio Remollo’s project to reclaim 174 hectares from the waters fronting our City


In many of our classes,


might fall on any of those four boxes. Wherever they may fall, I urge you not to be silent. I urge you not to slide to the comfort of neutrality. I urge you to take a stand.


Advocates. That’s the other word used to refer to us, lawyers. Advocates are never


neutral. You can be objective but never, ever neutral. Especially when matters of social justice and fundamental human rights are at stake.


Do something. Study the Public-Private Partnership ordinances. Write to the Mayor to


demand transparency, and request for documents. Release a statement if


ORLANDO RONCESVALLES


LETTER FROM DUMAGUETE


yes wide open” suggests complete awareness and an understanding of what is taking place, and a willingness to bear the consequences of one’s actions. Its opposite, Eyes Wide Shut,


E


is the playful title of a movie, although it can also mean a willingness to gamble on an uncertain future on the promise of a fantasy. The choice isn’t necessarily binary — we can keep one eye open, and then shut the other. That way, we can wink, or carry on with dissonant ideas. One idea is that of a peaceful university city by the sea; the other is that of a playground for the rich, a world of yachts, heliports, modern high-rise buildings, shopping malls, and ‘smart’ gadgets galore. Seriously, it can be done, but hang on to your pantaloons. We cannot fault our City


officials for dreaming big. It is easy to liken the project to those in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau. The history of these projects is one of success and great expense. There are similar projects in Dubai with mixed success and equally-great expense.


burden of such great expense on public coffers, our City officials have negotiated a ‘no-money cost’ (to the City) project, where a private partner (E.M. Cuerpo Inc. or EMCI) is to be responsible for all costs of the project.


To avoid the


the ‘full’ project cost at P23.5 billion, it is likely that something like P6 billion represents the cost of buildings, roads, and structures that are included in the project. In the alternative, the


City could undertake the reclamation alone, but it would have to raise P17 billion just to break even.


These conclusions crucially depend on two assumptions — the (actual) cost of reclamation, and the anticipated price or value of the reclaimed land. The first assumption does not necessarily include an estimate for the cost of environmental damage (discussed further below).


is to be shared by the City and EMCI. The City would have additional land for public purposes, including wastewater treatment facilities; it can build low-cost housing for City residents, and the project will generate jobs. The private partner also


stands to gain from income from ‘ancillary businesses’ that


Elephants


Apart from the legal and procedural issues that have a bearing on the matter, what also matters is the economics of land reclamation in general, and that of the proposed project for Dumaguete in particular. It is also a matter of balancing a vision of a bright future, while taking heed of warnings of an avoidable environmental disaster. As to the economics, land


it would put up and manage (sharing 25 percent of this income with the City), and it is understood that it would also receive buildable or saleable land from the project (on a sharing of 49 percent to EMCI; and 51 percent to the City). However, there are risks. The private partner anticipates, but is not guaranteed a profit. It has the option of not proceeding, or even ‘walking out’, losing its performance bond, and bearing the ‘sunk’ costs of the project.


reclamation is a good thing if the cost of ‘acquiring’ land through reclamation exceeds the cost or price of existing land.


For example, if land in Dumaguete costs on average P10,000/square-meter, then ‘reclaiming’ a square meter of land from the sea is a good proposition if land reclamation alone costs less than P10,000/ sqm.


If a project involves 174 hectares (1.74 million sqm), its break-even point is at a cost of P17.4 billion.


If the proponent estimates


The City has no upfront cost, but there is a non-zero probability that it will have an unfinished project that will have caused irreversible environmental damage, and the City runs the risk of having to bear the future costs of bio- marine mitigation.


is: Can we insure against such a risk?


City residents and taxpayers have a stake in this matter since in the future, the City may have to incur debt or increase taxes to cover such unforeseen costs.


The ‘gain’ from the project you want.


discussions. Sponsor online learning events. Invite all sides.


Our SU College of Law building hosts the JV Salonga Center for Law & Development. Senator Salonga once said:“In our history as a nation, our best years were when we took our destiny in our hands, and faced the uncertain future with boldness and hope and faith.” The future of our City needs your boldness, our collective hope, and our persistent faith. Our class on Law with a Conscience is now in session.


Let’s begin. Do something. Participate in online


oroncesval4@gmail.com; Twitter: @ORoncesvalles


forthcoming in the documents that the proponents have promised to the public. It is nonetheless possible to make educated guesses on how the studies would be conducted, based on the facts already known. These facts are: The cost of the project, to be shouldered by EMCI, is estimated at P23.5 billion, and this includes the cost of ‘raw’ land reclamation, and the cost of building the other works specified — wastewater treatment facilities, fish port, marina, yacht club, roads, and bridges, etc. For EMCI , the ‘gain’


Because there is no free lunch


from the project consists of future income from the ‘ancillary businesses’ from the ‘other works’ involved (it is understood that the income will be shared 75 percent in favor of EMCI, and 25 percent in favor of the City); and from the sale of its anticipated share of about half of the reclaimed land (minus, of course, the land that would be dedicated for common or public use). Estimating this ‘gain’ from the project is no easy task because it requires assumptions on how much income will result from the ancillary businesses, and on the price of land that can be ‘sold’ to third parties. For example, it may be


possible to assume that the ancillary businesses will require a capital expenditure of P6 billion (and this would be part of the P23 billion cost of the project); and that the businesses would earn a return on investment of 10 percent per year.


The ‘prudent man’ question


Over the 25-year life of the agreement between EMCI and the City, this could generate income for EMCI of P600 million/year, and the present value of such income flows could be P15 billion at a zero rate of discount (the present value would be less with a non- zero rate of discount). As to the anticipated revenue from sale of land to third parties, a very rough guess would be P8 billion if the land is priced at P10,000/sqm. Since P15 billion and P8


It seems fair to let the private partner do its own due diligence on the economic and financial feasibility of the project. We are told that this is


billion would amount to just about the same as the estimated cost, this would seem to be a base ‘break-even’ scenario. At a price of land substantially above P10,000/ sqm,EMCI would have a profitable project. However, one gray area for the costs of the project is the so-


TO PAGE 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16