ACCORDING to Microsoft Bing, the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 is a Philippine law that aims to protect and conserve the country’s cultural heritage.
The law created the Philippine Registry of Cultural Property (PRECUP), which is responsible for identifying, documenting, and protecting cultural properties that are at least 50 years old.
The law also mandates the establishment of a National Cultural Heritage Committee that will oversee the implementation of the law and the preservation of cultural heritage sites.
Since the law is very clear that buildings that are at least 50 years old could not be demolished or torn down, why is it that some heritage or cultural buildings are still being torn down?
One example of this is the iconic PhilAm Life Building in Ermita, Manila. It is about 60 years old, but the new owner, SM Development Corporation (SMDC), has apparently started tearing down the building, supposedly due to their plans to build a condo on that same site.
However, there are also news reports that SMDC has “promised” to preserve the PhilAm Life Theater itself, being a classic architectural wonder on its own. I am told that the quality of acoustics is so high inside such that so far, it has not been surpassed by the newer and more modern theaters in the country.
I hope that it is not too late already, but perhaps SMDC could look into “adaptive” use, which is the popular trend in Europe. Preserve the old building, but give it a new use.
JEEPNEY TRANSPORT COOPERATIVES
We hear so much about “jeepney consolidation” but I think that instead of focusing on that, we should focus on “cooperative formation”, and by that, I mean the formation or the strengthening of transport cooperatives.
To me, that sounds like a cause-and-effect relationship, and by that, I mean that cooperativism should be the cause, and consolidation should be the effect.
Long before the idea of “jeepney consolidation” came along, there are many transport cooperatives already, and many of them already own and operate jeepney units. As the saying goes, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. And by that, I mean that we should have just encouraged the adoption of more jeepney units, but owned and managed by transport cooperatives.
Strictly speaking, it does not even have to be transport coops at all, because it can just be any cooperative that is already selling all kinds of products and services, and all they have to do is to add jeepney operation as another service. That is so simple and easy to do, and any coop can do that.
I am wondering why the jeepney drivers have to be forced to go into consolidation, if it is going to be profitable to them, meaning that they can make more money out of it. And if they can be offered friendly and affordable financing packages, there should be no need to force them also to buy in.
But the good news is, many coops can afford to finance their own projects, if and when profitable./PN
