Illegal reclamation and rat tails

Bencyrus Ellorin

BARANGAY 33 chairman Conrad Lim cannot claim what he does not own. Neither can he get paid for it, too.

But do not tell that to former councilor President Elipe, and perhaps the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Elipe, coming to Lim’s rescue is no-brainer, but the DPWH?

In the hierarchy of rights, right to property comes second to right to life. One cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. That is provided by Constitution’s Bill of Rights. But whether or not Lim can invoke this to protect the illegally reclaimed land that is standing in the way of the coastal highway in Barangay Lapasan is the question?

Lim has been given amnesty by the Philippine Reclamation Authority for illegally reclaiming a portion of the coastal waters in 2008.  Records would show, and Elipe would surely not deny that the City Council approved a resolution on the reclamation. The City Council approved a resolution supporting the illegal reclamation?

Amnesty presupposes that a violation of law has been committed. It exculpates the violator from the penalty of the violation of law, but not the wrongdoing. The wrong reclamation by Lim remains wrong.

Does Lim have valid property rights on an illegally reclaimed land? Obviously, no.

It is queer the DPWH is considering the expropriation of Lim’s illegally reclaimed land. Going back to the bill of rights, expropriation is the due process required to confiscate privately owned land for public use. Expropriation is based on the State’s right to imminent domain. The power of the state to use privately owned property.

The elements of expropriation are (1) private property covered by proper title; (2) the taking should be for public use; and (3) there must be payment of just compensation to the property owner.

Are these elements present in Lim’s case? No. He does not have a valid title. In fact, by virtue of the amnesty, he has been deemed to have accepted committing a wrongdoing in reclaiming part of the municipal waters.

Is there taking of private property for public use? No. The State remains the owner of the municipal waters and illegally reclaimed portions of it. It is basic logic that one does not take back what has not been given.

Is the State required to pay just compensation? In Bisaya, doing so would be like giluto sa kaugalingon na mantika. There is no private property to start with; there is no taking; therefore, taxpayer’s money should not be spent for just compensation.

Paying Lim would be bad precedent, illegal and a perverse incentive.

It is bad precedent as it would encourage others to do illegal reclamation; it is illegal as taxpayer’s money should not be used to pay what the state owns.

During the French colonization of Vietnam, the Europeans so disdained rats. They asked locals to hunt rats. They devised an incentive to pay for every rat tail turned over by the locals. The campaign did not eradicate rats; it encouraged rat farming.

In the past, there were muted complaints in Barangay Lapasan. Locals said an “untouchable” is getting in the way of coastal road project which would have eased traffic on CM Recto Avenue. That was in the past when this untouchable had protectors like the City Council lorded over by the likes of Elipe.

Now, Mayor Oscar Moreno is taking the bull by the horn. Moreno opposes the move to expropriate the land and suggests the national government should exercise the full force of the law.

On Elipe’s challenge, he better be careful what he wishes for. Moreno is not known for cavalier acts. He would likely stick to what the law provides, and he has in fact asked City Hall lawyers to study options. Perhaps, it is high time City Hall and the public invoked the general welfare clause in the Local Government Code.

Using taxpayers’ money to get rid of Lim’s illegally reclaimed land would encourage abuse of power, impunity and mockery of the laws. It would be like buying rat tails. The result: infestation of more dregs of society.