Barangay approval of ABC 5 tower hit PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:44

Hon. Nonito Aranas
Office of the
Barangay Captain
Zone 2
Zamboanga City

Subj:   Comments and Opposition to the Issuance of Barangay Resolution No.
014-11 with a Request-far the Immediate Withdrawal of the-; same.

Dear Barangay Captain,

This is in reference to the Barangay issuance of Resolution no. 014-11, series of 2011, entitled “APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TV 5  ZAMBOANGA BROADCAST TOWER (175 FT. SST-FOUR LEGGED) OF ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/ MEDIA QUEST iNC.” which we, among the actual occupants and  owners of properties within the radial distance equivalent to the height of the proposed ABC 5 broadcast tower, are making known our comments and vehement objections to the issuance of such resolution with a request for the immediate withdrawal of the same due to or based on the foiiowing cogent reasons, to wit;

1. First:     Barangay Resolution no. 014-11, series of 2011 was issued without regard to due process clause;
After three (3) public hearings conducted by the City Planning and Development Office in coordination with this Sangguniang Barangay on the issue of the proposed construction of ABC 5 broadcast tower, nothing was heard of from the Barangay or from the office of the City Planning. No notice, no resolution, no information was ever been given to the barangay constituents, especially to those who were opposing to the proposed construction, on the result or outcome of the said public hearings. Surprisingiy, our Sangguniang Barangay has already passed and approved Resolution no. 014-31, series of 2011 way back April 02, 20.11, which we came to know only during the public hearing held last August 4, 2011, conducted by City Planning. Had we been notified in time, we could have brought up some of our concerns and defended our side on why we think Resolution No. 014-11 should not be passed and approved by the Sangguniang Barangay. Our Sangguniang, body headed by the office of the barangay captain together with its councilmen have miserably failed to consider and deliberate upon the true and full sentiments of those who are opposed to the construction of ABC 5 tower, after all, we who are considered oppositionists are aiso constituents of this barangay to which our Sanggurnang members represent.

One of the basis for passing and approving resolution no. 014-11 is that vague and obscure statement which states that, to quote “WHEREAS, after the ocular inspection, it was found out that Jasmin Tower Building is beyond the 50 meter radius away from the TV-5 broadcast tower” which honestly we don’t understand what it implies but could have been clarified and corrected on time had we been given the opportunity of notice and hearing. To our minds such sweeping statement implies as if all those oppositionists are either a resident or have their offices at Jasmin Tower building, therefore, their objection or opposition is excluded or eliminated for being outside the 50 meter radius. Not so fast, because even if the main Oppositor Guillermo B. Profeta has his residence at Jasmin tower, his opposition is valid and legal and cannot be excluded because he is a lot owner and owner also of other persona! properties within the 50 meter radius, as well as an adjoining lot owner, therefore, his consent to said construction is required.

Without giving notice to the said oppositionists and their entitlement to be heard and defend their cause, it can be said that Resolution No, 014-11, series of ?011 has been passed and approved by the Sangguniang Body hurriedly and capriciously, done in bad faith, with evident partiality and bias by favoring only the business interest of the proponent and against the interests and welfare of their constituents, to whom they are sworn to protect. In other words, whatever economic benefits that may be derived from the operation of this tower cannot offset the overriding demand for the protection of life and promotion of good health of the residents.

2. Second:   Barangay Resolution No. 014-11, series of 2011 was issued despite the fact that the requirement of written consent or affidavit of no- objection from majority of actual occupants has not been complied:

Among the requirement for the issuance of Locationai Clearance permit is that there must be “consent/affidavit of no-objection from majority of actual occupants and owners of properties within a radial distance equivalent to the height of the proposed base station measured from its base, including all those whose properties are adjoining the proposed site of the base station” (HLURB Res. 626, series of 1998, as amended).

To determine majority presupposes that all actual occupants, including owners of properties within the 53.34 (175 ft.) meters radius of the proposed ABC 5 tower, including owners of the adjoining lot of the proposed site, has been known, named and identified. In this case, no identification and no listings has been undertaken or determined by anybody, not even the Barangay, the City Planning or ABC5 contractor/representative themselves. In spite of this, Barangay Resolution no. 014-11, series 2011 states that ‘Whereas/ an affidavit from those neighbour-residents was executed showing no desistance on said construction” as if that was sufficient enough compliance, when what is required is majority- majority being simply defined as fifty percent plus one (50% plus 1) of the total number. Therefore, those twenty or so who signed said affidavit does not represent and could not. be said to represent the majority of allthe actual occupants contemplated in the requirement;

On this basis alone, the Sangguniang Barangay should not have passed and approved Resolution no. 014-11 endorsing the construction of said ABC 5 tower considering that the contractor of ABC 5 could not even muster the consent of majority of the actua! occupants and property owners as required. White there remains to be a significant number of those who are opposed, the passing and approval of resolution 03.4-11 can be viewed as illegal, invalid and improper, therefore should be withdrawn or taken back.

3. Third  Actual occupants and property owners within the 50 meter radius of the proposed ABC 5 broadcast tower, including adjacent lot owners were misinformed:
Why is consent or approval of actual occupants and property owners within the radial distance equivalent to the height of the proposed ABC 5 broadcast tower part of the mandatory procedural requirement before any locational clearance can be issued? What is the rationale or basis for such requirement? According to the City Planning Office, during the public hearing conducted at the barangay level, consent of majority of the actual occupants within the 50 meter radius is required because of the radiation effects. The contractor who represents ABC 5 tower cannot explain to us why, when he first approached us to secure our consent. The Barangay cannot give us any explanation despite the fact that there were already plenty of towers amassing like mushrooms within their territory. As a matter of fact, if you try to examine the Affidavit procured by the contractor for the signature of the so called twenty (20) or so actual occupants who conform to the said construction, you will find. nothing significant or relevant, particularly explaining why the consent of only those within the 50 meter radius of the proposed tower are required, except the general and sweeping statements that this project will give advantage to us Zamboanguenos… and income generating project..”

This affidavit is flawed with misinformation and misrepresentation and still despite its defect, the City Planning, including the barangay did not even bother to correct it, instead accepted it as substantial compliance of the requirement. In other words,  Resolution no. 014-11, series of 2011, has been passed and approved, affidavits of no objection has been procured and submitted with everybody misinformed and ignorant of the rationale of such requirement. The only plausible reason we could draw from this requirement is that consent is needed or required from majority of the actual occupants within a radius  equivalent to the height of the proposed ABC 5 tower, as well as consent of the lot owners and adioining owners, is because a broadcast tower like the proposed ABC 5 tower is a nuisance or annoyance. A broadcast tower as high as 50 meters or so poses a great danger to life, limbs and properties within the radial distance equivalent also to its height of 50 meters. The danger of life to perish, limb to be immobilized or put out of use, properties to be damaged and destroyed, in the event this tower completely collapses or debris of materials coming from the tower flies all over the place, is what this requirement sought to protect. In other words, by consenting or conforming to the construction of this tower, you are exposing yourself, your family, your house, your land and all your personal properties to this kind of danger or risk which can happen anytime.

We do not want this kind of danger, we do not want to take the risk, we fear that one day someone wili lose his life, or any parts of his body, or any of our properties be damaged or destroyed when the inevitable and unforeseen will happen, that is why we are taking this fervent stand by opposing and objecting to the construction or this broadcast tower. If the same reason has been brought out earlier especially to those who signed the affidavit of no objection, we are certain and without doubt that those who signed will change their minds.

Procured with irregularity

4. Fourth:   Main oppositors to the construction of ABC 5 Broadcast tower are well within the 50 meter radius of the proposed site, therefore, should be considered as proper parties to be directly affected by said construction;

It. is improper, unjust, oppressive and unreasonable tor the Barangay Sangguniang to just brush aside entirely our objections and oppositions and totally exclude or eliminate all of us from being the proper party to oppose to the said construction just because some of those who signed as oppositionists have their residence or office at Jasmin Tower Building. Not all of those opposed are residing or having their office at Jasmin tower building. Among the building and land owners within the 50 meter radius of the proposed construction site are the Profeta family, as owner of San Luis compound, Lim Family, as OWNER of Astoria Publishing and parking area, the Cortez family as owner of the lot and building where the 25th Avenue Tailoring is located, and Rodriquez famiiy, to name a few, are those whose consent and affirmation is required. As per ocular inspection conducted by the members of the City Planning and members of the City Engineering on the actuai areas affected by the 50 meter radius, it would appear that the Assessor’s map which was made as basis for measuring the 50 meter  radius is incomplete and inaccurate therefore should be revised and corrected.

It is for the reason cited above that WE, in the strongest terms, oppose and object the passing and approval of Barangay Resolution No.014-11, series of 2011 and we call upon our barangay councilmen and the barangay captain to withdraw immediately said resolution for being iilegal, improper and violative of due process, lest your insistence on keeping this resolution will  give rise to a possible legal consequences.

Very truly yours,
Actual occupants and property owners
Within the 50 meter radius of proposed ABC 5 tower