Guimaras opposes Iloilo City’s ferry terminal project

ILOILO CITY—A lawyers’ group has asked the court to stop a controversial P135-million ferry terminal project intended for travelers to and from neighboring Guimaras Island.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) chapter in Guimaras filed a nine-page complaint at the Iloilo Regional Trial Court on May 26 to rescind a joint venture between the city government and DoubleDragon Properties Corp. Among the complainants was Guimaras Vice Gov. Vicente de Asis.

A separate four-page motion sought a restraining order against the construction of the ferry terminal complex.

Named defendants were Iloilo Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog, the city council led by Vice Mayor Jose Espinosa III, DoubleDragon, and Iloilo-Guimaras Ferry Terminal Corp.

The 25-year agreement grants exclusive rights to DoubleDragon to collect terminal, berthing and cargo fees, and to sublease or rent out commercial spaces in the terminal complex. In turn, the developer will finance, construct and operate the complex on a 13,000-square-meter (1.3-hectare) government land near the port of Iloilo.

The facility will be turned over to the city government after the expiration of the agreement, though it can be renewed for another 25 years. Existing ferry terminals at the Ortiz and Parola wharfs, both in Iloilo City, would be closed when the new terminal complex operates.

Guimaras officials and residents have started a signature campaign against the project, especially over provisions on the charging of P11 per passenger as terminal fee and P30 per boat as berthing fee.

The project has also been criticized for the terms of revenue-sharing between DoubleDragon and the city government which is perceived to favor the developer.

Sought for comment, Mabilog said the city’s legal department would respond to the complaint. But he said in a text message that he had been holding meetings with Guimaras Gov. Samuel Gumarin “with regards to the adjustment of the terminal rates.”

DoubleDragon did not reply to request for a statement or comment. It has maintained the legality of its joint-venture agreement and that it has been abiding with its terms of reference.

The IBP-Guimaras said the deal was entered into “illegally and with haste” by the respondents. It was “executed without regard to the people of Guimaras which constitute more than 95 percent of the paying commuters from where the source of revenues or income of the defendants shall be derived,” it said.

Guimaras and its capital town, Jordan, “were not given an opportunity to review the (agreement) and the master plan,” it said. It argued that the Iloilo City government “has no authority or power to commit and (obligate) the people of Guimaras to pay (P11) per commuter … without their representatives who are their elected officials being consulted … .” Nestor P. Burgos Jr., Inquirer Visayas