PRESS RELEASE

19 July 2010

Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro approved the recommendation to file graft charges against Mayor Arturo Radaza and City Attorney Vincent Joseph Lim, both of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu for the alleged “unlawful, whimsical and despotic” demolition of a causeway in the City.

          In a 10-page Resolution, investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas stated that there are sufficient evidence to prove that Radaza and Lim caused the summary demolition of the said structure without judicial proceedings.

          Records of the case showed that Goldpoint Land Corp. (GLC) has a pending foreshore lease application (FLA) before the Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) over a foreshore area located at Brgy. Agus, Lapu-Lapu City. Within the foreshore area is a causeway which had been in existence for over 15 years. The said causeway is covered by an application for special registration under the amnesty program of the Phil. Reclamation Authority.

          However, Radaza, in the absence of judicial proceedings allegedly put up a notice signed by Lim declaring that the causeway was illegal because it had no owner based on City Government records and it had no building permit. The notice said that the causeway was due for demolition. Thereafter, the said causeway was demolished.

          During investigation, Radaza maintained that their action complied with due process pursuant to Local Government Code Ordinance 484-2003 of Lapu-Lapu City. The said Ordinance allows the City Mayor to order the demolition of illegally-constructed houses, buildings and other structures within the period prescribed by law or ordinance.

Complainant GLC on the other hand presented evidence which clearly illustrate their possession and occupation of the land on which the once-existent causeway was first built.

          Hence, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II (GIPO II) Sarah Jo Vergara concluded that “Complainants’ express claim of ownership, along with the documents they present as proof of their rights, are substantial enough to warrant deference from any repressive action, especially so that what is involved is an improvement on real property that cost much to build, is troublesome to un-build, and costlier to rebuild.”

          The Resolution said Ordinance No. 484-2003 applies only to nuisance per se which affect the immediate safety or persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. However, it said  a causeway constructed along a foreshore land is not a nuisance per se. Hence, it may not be abated via an ordinance, without judicial proceedings.

          Because of this, the investigator recommended the filing of charges for Violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against the respondents.

          Radaza had filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the said Resolution.##