Villar C5 Controversy Fact Sheet - The Real Document

Reads:

1,850

Uploaded:

04/17/2010

Category:

Research>Law

Rated:

(1 Rating)

Copyright:

Public Domain

Villar C5 Controversy Fact Sheet
C5 PRIMER

QUESTION:

WHAT IS THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ROAD (C5) PROJECT?

ANSWER: The C5 Road Project is a project ... (More) Villar C5 Controversy Fact Sheet
C5 PRIMER

QUESTION:

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.


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 CityTaguig/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.

QUESTION: DID VILLAR CAUSE THE DOUBLE INSERTION OR DOUBLE APPROPRIATION OF P200M FOR THE C5 PROJECT? ANSWER: NO. 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.

The First P200 M goes to Sucat Rd. flyover
Ro ad

Flyover2 Coastal Road

Co ast al

NA IA r

oad

Flyover 1 Sucat Road Su ca tR oa d

SLEX

Additional P200 M goes to Coastal flyover

QUESTION: DID VILLAR CAUSE THE C5 ROAD EXTENSION TO BE DIVERTED TO DELIBERATELY PASS THROUGH THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY VILLAR CORPORATION? ANSWER: NO.

a)

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

b)

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

QUESTION: DID THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY VILLAR CORPORATIONS AT A GROSSLY OVERPRICED AMOUNT?

ANSWER: NO.

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 highe (Less)