Alvarez hits DOTr's common station proposal: Win-win for malls, not commuters

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez on Wednesday hit officials of the Department of Transportation (DOTr) over the new proposed common station for Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Metro Rail Transit (MRT), saying it put business interests before commuters’ convenience.

Sitting on the panel of the House transportation committee hearing, Alvarez scolded DOTr officials for the plan to build the common station, which will connect the three main lines of the rail system, between SM North EDSA and TriNoma.

The proposal moves the common station from locations provided in plans from 2009 and 2013, with DOTr saying it considered the need for big space for “common concourse.”

The 2009 proposal, approved by the National Economic Development Authority’s (NEDA) Investment Coordinating Council, placed the said station at SM City North EDSA Annex.

“Paano magiging seamless ‘yan eh paglalakarin n’yo ‘yung mga pasahero nang malayo?” said Alvarez, who was transport secretary under Gloria Macapgal Arroyo from 2001 to 2002.

“Kaysa doon sa pinresent ni Congressman (Danilo) Suarez… Nu’ng nag-conduct ng public hearing nu’ng 14th Congress na-identify na ‘yan. Bakit ngayon bago na naman?”

DOTr Usec. Raoul Creencia explained that the new proposed location was “actually a product of technical consideration, [as well as] convenience on the part of the passengers.”

But Alvarez slammed the idea, saying it wasn’t for the benefit of the commuters nor the government, but to “accommodate” business interests.

“‘Yung win-win [solution] n’yo is win-win between SM and TriNoma,” he said, adding that the plan would ask government to spend more.

“Under the proposed location na sinasabi ni Congressman Suarez, ang gobyerno ay gagastos lang ng P700 million. Nagbayad pa ‘yung SM ng P200 million sa naming rights, so P500 million na lang. Now you are proposing na ‘yung win-win solution n’yo, the government will spend P2.8 billion. Saan ang interes ng gobyerno do’n?” he said.

Alvarez then advised, “You better review that agreement.”

“‘Wag n’yo nang dagdagan ‘yung kaso n’yo, because I think medyo glaring naman ‘yung considerations dito. Definitely there will be a deeper investigation ‘pag tinuloy n’yo ‘yan,” he said.

“We’re not saying you delay the project because it is needed, pero do’n na tayo sa pinakapraktikal. Pupunta kayo sa Congress, hihingi kayo ng P2.8 billion, ‘di naka-program ‘yan. You have no right to sign any agreement committing the government… so patong-patong na kaso ‘yan,” he added.

Franchises

There was also an apparent difference of views on the need for private entities engaged in the project to acquire a legislative franchise.

Creencia said companies involved have been granted concession pursuant to Republic Act No. 6957, or the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law.

“The concession in itself is the franchise,” he said. “That’s in the law… When a private entity enters a concession agreement with the government, that private entity is no longer required to get a separate franchise.”

Alvarez refuted this and pointed out that a railway “involves public utility.”

“The Constitution is very specific that you must have a legislative franchise to open a public utility business,” the speaker said.

Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas said Creencia’s claim makes the law “questionable because that violates the Constitution.”

“We will review this,” he said. —JST, GMA News