COLUMN: OPINION ON PAGE ONE- Should China build a bridge in Intramuros?- First of 2 parts – By Francisco S. Tatad

First of 2 parts

DO we need a half-kilometer, four-lane Philippine-Chinese “Friendship Bridge” to help relieve the monstrous daily traffic in the metropolis? Most of us will likely say, we do.

But should we allow China, on its own, to build such a bridge between Binondo and Intramuros, a vital part of our protected Hispanic heritage, on the eve of the 500th year of the Christianization of the Philippines?

.

I put this question to you, dear reader, on behalf of all Filipinos whose cultural dignity, historical integrity, and national honor may be at stake.

We have already lost some of our territory in the Spratlys to the Chinese. Should we also lose control over our one and only Intramuros?

On Malacañang’s apparent say-so, without the necessary clearances from the appropriate anthropological, archaeological, cultural and historical authorities, the Chinese government has commenced work on a proposed P4.2-billion bridge, using a full complement of Chinese workers, without a single Filipino on board.

.

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

Troubling issues

I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but there are a number of troubling issues.

First of all, who decided there should be a Chinese bridge in Intramuros?

Who provided the design and the specs?

Were any studies done to see how much vibration the soft underground and the old buildings above it could withstand during the construction and during actual use after the bridge is finished?

Will Intramuros remain a kindly place for pedestrians, pilgrims and tourists?

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

Is there no risk that the bridge could end up like the highly controversial 49-story Torre de Manila on Taft Avenue, which rose behind the Jose Rizal monument at the Luneta, and changed what used to be the best park skyline in all of Metro Manila?

Manilans got even angrier after the Supreme Court ruled that no law protects skylines, the court had no jurisdiction over the issue, the Knights of Rizal had no legal standing to sue, and they stood to suffer no injury.

A gift horse?

How did China get involved here? Did President Rodrigo Duterte ask for this bridge, or was it offered as a gift? DU30 should tell us.

Historians tell us the Chinese are no total strangers to Intramuros, Binondo or San Nicolas. They recount that in 1594, Binondo became a small quarter for Chinese and Chinese mestizos, who served the Spanish colony during the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade as laborers, craftsmen, contractors and traders. They helped make San Nicolas flourish as a barrio of Binondo until 1894. Between 1868 and 1886, Chinese migration to Binondo rose.

Why is China—rather than Spain, or Portugal or Mexico, which were all involved in the galleon trade with Manila—the one building a bridge in Intramuros in the run-up to the 500th anniversary of Spain’s evangelization of the Philippines? Is it simply to make a political statement, or just because China alone has the money?

Whatever the answer, we have to make sure this bridge project does not cost us the loss of Intramuros as a national cultural treasure and a buffer zone for the world heritage site of San Augustin Church, or the loss of San Agustin itself as a Unesco world heritage site. The bridge project threatens both. It could set back the development of our archaeological, anthropological, cultural and historical sites by so many decades.

We cannot afford it.

.

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

Rebuilding

In 1979, through Presidential Decree 1616, President Marcos created the “Intramuros Administration” to “direct the orderly restoration and development of Intramuros as a monument to the Hispanic period of Philippine history.”

The decree declared that “for 400 years, Intramuros has been a priceless heritage of the past for the city of Manila and a major historical landmark of the Philippines.”

In all construction activities, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1616 mandate, among others, that “the urban scale of 1891 shall be observed. In accordance with this, monolithic designs or structures that are out of scale in relation to the block and its immediate vicinity shall in no case be allowed.”

Wikipedia defines “urban scale” as a term that describes “the sense of height, bulk, and architectural articulation of a place or individual building, often in relation to the size of a human body.” This means that any new structure being introduced should not alter or depart from the general design of the structures that exist.

Like other great cities

In cities like Paris, Rome, London, Geneva, Vienna, Prague, St Petersburg, and the like, a property owner may not introduce innovations or alterations on his own private property without the prior consent of state cultural authorities.

In 1981, Proclamation 2146 declared Intramuros an “environmentally critical area,” which would require the National Museum to provide technical information on the impact of any proposed project within it before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) can issue an environmental compliance certificate (ECC).

In 2009, Republic Act 10066, otherwise known as the National Cultural Heritage Act, recognized Intramuros as a “Grade 1 site that deserves the full and unwavering protection of the State as a National Cultural Treasure and which forms the buffer zone for the San Agustin church and monastery, which is part of the World Heritage Property Baroque Churches of the Philippines (1993).”

Aside from San Agustin in Intramuros, there are three other baroque churches in the Philippines: San Agustin in Ilocos Norte, La Nuestra Señora de la San Asuncion in Ilocos Sur and Santo Tomas de Villanueva in Miag-ao, Iloilo.

A short history

But San Agustin in Intramuros occupies pride of place. Built at first of light material after the founding of Manila in 1571, it was destroyed by fire in 1574 when Limahong, the Chinese pirate, invaded Manila and burned the city, including the church.

After it had been rebuilt, it was destroyed again by another fire in 1583. The friars decided to use adobe stones, working on it from 1586 until 1607. This allowed the structure to withstand earthquakes and storms in the 16th and 17th centuries.

In 1762, during the Seven Years War, the British forces looted the church.

In 1898, following the battle of Manila Bay, American and Spanish officials met in the church to discuss and sign the terms of Spain’s surrender to the US.

During the Japanese occupation, the Japanese military used the church as a concentration camp. Priests and laymen were held hostage.

Indestructible

The Battle of Manila in 1945 destroyed most of the buildings in the area, but left the church standing intact.

Buried inside the church are the remains, among others, of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi, the first Spanish governor-general, and other conquistadores, like Juan de Salcedo and Martin de Goiti.

San Agustin remains a most popular tourism and pilgrimage site.

The law requires that “any government or non-government infrastructure project or architectural site development (in the area) shall include anthropological, archaeological, historical and heritage site conservation concerns in the environmental impact assessment system.”

On any project the National Museum should provide an authoritative impact assessment before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources can issue the necessary environmental compliance certificate (ECC). Without it, no ECC can be issued, and without an ECC, no work can lawfully proceed.

.

Many doubt that the National Museum ever issued an impact assessment on the proposed bridge. I have not found anyone who says the project got an ECC based on the required impact assessment. Many suspect the project moved only because of Chinese money and political shortcuts. Whatever happened, the real issue is not so much what happens to our politics with China as what happens to our cultural heritage.

Sources at the National Committee on Monuments and Sites fear the danger is real that San Agustin could be delisted as a world heritage site. This would not be unprecedented. In 2004, the World Heritage Committee deleted the German city of Dresden, also known as “Florence on the Elbe,” from the World Heritage List for building a four-lane bridge in the heart of that cultural landscape which compromised its “outstanding universal value.”

Should San Agustin ever be delisted as a world heritage site, all the three other baroque churches in Ilocos and Iloilo would also be delisted because the four churches are listed together as one bunch. This would leave the Philippines with only five world heritage sites: the Ifugao Rice Terraces, Puerto Princesa undergound river, the city of Vigan, Tubbataha Reefs in Palawan, and Mount Hamigguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary in Davao Oriental.

The situation looks bad, but not entirely hopeless. Cultural experts believe it can still be saved. For now, the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) should issue a cease and desist order to stop the ongoing construction, but at the same time preside over an earnest effort to put in an alternative plan.

In the second part of this article, I shall explore how Intramuros, as a potential world heritage site, San Agustin church, as an actual site, and the proposed Chinese bridge can be saved.

(To be continued on Wednesday)

[email protected]

.

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

All photographs, news, editorials, opinions, information, data, others have been taken from the Internet ..aseanews.net | [email protected] |.For comments, Email to :D’Equalizer | [email protected] | Contributor