22 September 2022, from Gems:

Yesterday, the decibel or, rather, the level of noise surrounding our perceived shared victory, increased. A slew of options emerged. And I gathered that messages got exchanged privately among members with many asking the BOD to step in. So here am I, sirs.

I would suggest that we not jump the gun on the enforcement of the SC decision. Once the entry of judgment is made, the initiative does not rest with us, but with the four plaintiffs and their legal counsels. Strictly speaking, the SC final ruling is their victory even as, by extension, we can claim it as ours in a moral sense. We cannot simply elicit a statement or compel any action from the Navy since we are not parties in interest. It would be imprudent to ask them for their plans on when to vacate the area. They will hold their ground and resist since the SC decision only covers the four claimants. For all our hue and cry, the Navy will only talk with and settle with those four or with their representatives in the execution of the decision.

Our path, since we did not file a legal case, has to go through the DENR and the DND, which we have in fact established. Under DENR’s new Secretary, however, the continuous movement of those orders of awards or deeds of sale cannot be expected to go into higher gear. At least not immediately yet. Under DND’s new OIC, the previous DO 49 which include all similarly situated legitimate and qualified lot owners has to find translation in a new Department Order, this time providing proper implementing instructions and guidance. But being an OIC, can the new Secretary of Defense sign the eviction notice to its own major branch of service in Fort Bonifacio? In any case, we probably need the intervention of former SND Delfin Lorenzana here. A call on the new SND at the soonest time possible is definitely in order.

So we’ll have to reload a modified strategy. This is actually the intent of the new Phase 678 Chapter BOD. But then, of course, we’ll have to wait first for the outcome of the Oct 1 AFPOVAI Elections. The good thing is that for the first time we will be truly represented at the AFPOVAI Board by one of us, Sir Gene Senga. Sir Gene, indeed, is the first 678er to be fielded by Phase 678 ourselves. A better mindset to take therefore is: instead of waiting, we will make that outcome possible. Let us all go out and vote, electronically or manually, for Sir Gene, this coming October first. (What we did last Saturday, September 17, was to endorse him from our Chapter level.)

On the legal side, of course, nothing bars us from seeking advice and assistance from AFPOVAI’s legal officer, who has yet to get in her hands all the pertinent documents and study them on top of getting appraised of our own situation. This could be in preparation for our own legal battle – if we are contemplating to wage our own. But are we?

Now, while we may seek the help of Atty Boiser, I am not quite sure about the propriety of calling out Atty Rolando Faller. Atty Faller, who was instrumental in getting the win for Gen Abaya and his group, cannot be categorically regarded as our Chapter lawyer, and vice versa. He is the legal counsel of the late Margarita Cobarrubias who supported not only the four from the RTC hearings all the way to the Supreme Court deliberations, but also provided assistance to other 678 members who were in dire need of help. They are under no obligation to provide legal documents pertinent to the case.

Most of us know the story. On account of the mother board’s decision in the past to withdraw support from the four claimants, a rift developed between some members of our Chapter who held the view that the case against the Navy would not prosper at all and other members who believed otherwise. The former group, to which the majority of 678 members today belong, followed different courses of action until last year when your current BOD – with yours truly as Chair – decided to simply focus on the singular strategy of following up the rest of the lot applications at DENR.

The latter group, led by Mrs Cobarrubias and some senior officers, stayed the course of the SC’s decision and clung to their hopes of a legal breakthrough.

Last June 15, the Supreme Court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of the Philippine Navy and ruled fairly on the case. Also early this month, DENR processed and finally released the first five deeds of sale of our 678 lots. It bears noting that both breaking developments have nothing to do with each other.

I would learn soon enough that as quietly as the four celebrated, some of us already started a drum roll in excitement and many are beginning to get carried away. But within the context of how negatively they were treated by the AFPOVAI Board and arguably by some of us, it is relevant to ask ourselves whether it would be fair to them for us to seek their legal counsel’s services.

In the meantime, is it worth putting the pressure on the Philippine Navy when only four got through the door? Is it worth turning them into an adversary and asking for their help when things get out hand in the unexpected scenario of incursion of illegal settlers? As far as I’m concerned I’ve treated the Navy with respect and I’ve seen where they’re coming since becoming your Chairman, but I expect that they would follow legal orders from the AFP and DND. Whether we like it or not, the phased exit of the Philippine Navy from the golf course in due time will take the Navy’s cooperation more than any military service or agency of the government.

Sir Gene Senga is right to imply prudence. I would add propriety and patience. The rest of us are not parties to the case.

Undoubtedly, we have a long way to go, but we’re on the right track.