Manila councilors complain about ‘Bourne Legacy’ traffic jams
MANILA, Philippines—The “Bourne Legacy” movie series may have found new antagonists in Manila councilors, who have complained that the producers had not sought the city council’s permission to close major roads for the shooting.
In a privilege speech last Tuesday, fourth district councilor Jocelyn Quintos complained of the “monstrous traffic jam” caused by the February 4-5 shooting on Ramon Magsaysay Blvd. in Sta. Mesa district.
The shoot required the closure of the boulevard’s westbound lane from Araneta St. to Pureza St., in the vicinity of the Sta. Mesa wet market.
Quintos claimed that no permission had been sought from the city government, and no advisory released, for the road closure and consequent traffic rerouting.
On Sunday, Ramon Magsaysay Blvd. was once again closed for another shooting.
The film producers have actually been coordinating with the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) for its shootings on Manila roads. The MMDA has been releasing traffic advisories online, including in its much-followed Twitter account.
A quick check with Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim’s chief of staff Ricardo de Guzman also revealed that the producers had sought and been granted permits.
This is apparently not good enough for the Manila councilors, who think that an ordinance or a resolution should be passed before local roads could be closed.
Fourth district councilor Edward Maceda cited Section 21 of the Local Government Code to point out that local road closures would require a measure from the council, and that the chief executive can only order road closures under specific circumstances like emergencies, repairs and maintenance, or fiesta celebrations.
Film shootings are not included under the instances specified by the Local Government Code, he claimed.
In the discussion that followed Quintos’ speech, councilors came forward one after another to express support and share their own horror stories due to the traffic jam on February 4.
Sixth district councilor Joy Dawis-Asuncion pointed out that her usual 15-minute drive home took three and a half hours that day. She added that the city government ended up getting the flak for the traffic jam: “We received a frightening amount of criticisms, saying we did nothing.”
Fourth district councilor DJ Bagatsing said he received reports that families had a hard time going to hospitals and schools because of the heavy traffic. The film brought “benefits to this country, but they don’t outweigh the law and the daily routine of our constituents,” he said.
Fellow fourth district councilor Eduardo Quintos agreed with the sentiment: “Despite the positive benefits like amusement and the income by locals who assisted in the film, the inconvenience to the majority is much more important than the gains of the few.”
Third district councilor Joel Chua, meanwhile, underscored the need for the MMDA to coordinate with cities, and complained of their “intrusion” into local government powers.
Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso, also presiding officer of the council, shared he was also a “victim” of the traffic jam when he took his children to school on that day.
He ordered the council committee for transportation to write the film producers and the MMDA to demand a copy of any council resolution or local permit allowing them to temporarily close the streets of Manila.
“If not, we will sue them…for violating and disregarding laws of this country and this city,” he threatened.
