You are on page 1of 37

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 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.
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

oad
ad

IA r
Ro

NA
al
Flyover2 ast
Coastal Road
Co
Flyover 1
Sucat Road

SLEX
Su
ca
tR
oa
d

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.

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
QUESTION: DID THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE THE
PROPERTIES OWNED BY VILLAR
CORPORATIONS AT A GROSSLY OVER-
PRICED 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 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.
P15,000/sq.m.

P4,000/sq.m.
P30,000/sq.m.

P4,000/sq.m.

P4,000/sq.m.
QUESTION: IS SEN. VILLAR REQUIRED TO “DIVEST”
UNDER THE LAW?

ANSWER: 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.
QUESTION: IS THERE A “CONFLICT OF INTEREST”?

ANSWER: 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