Business, Economics and Consulting

In my previous article, I discussed the legal basis of zoning where I specifically mentioned that zoning has more profound political than technical and procedural implications. I also categorically admonished the local Sanggunian members to realize the serious political implication of zoning, and I made that admonition to ensure that the whole exercise would become beneficial rather than detrimental to all concerned.

As I have said, zoning is a state intervention to promote common good. The “promotion of common good” is too abstract a phrase but it is intended to cover public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. It leaves flexibility to the community to define and determine the scope of its application.

I do not have anything about zoning except on the whole process of coming up with a zoning ordinance. First, it requires an honest-to-goodness Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) as its basis; after all, zoning is the implementing instrument of the CLUP. The zoning ordinance, therefore, is only as good as the plan itself. It could not be better, but it could definitely be worse. If Davao City is contemplating in coming up with a new zoning ordinance, it should first revisit its current CLUP or CDP. No short cuts please. But should short cuts be resorted to (i.e., issuance of a zoning ordinance not based on the CLUP) for exigency purposes, the process should be participatory and consultative so that the contents of the ordinance would be better than those of the plan.

Even the preparation of the CLUP or the CDP should be highly participatory and consultative. As I’ve mentioned, these planning documents should be the product of social consensus. Unfortunately, we use the terms consultative and participatory very loosely when what we truly mean is “mere public presentation” of the technical outputs of the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO). And we say dialogue when we truly mean a mere open forum where the more assertive ones in the audience throw their questions and these are subsequently answered by the officials concerned or consultants but without assurance of having such concerns making it to the final version of these documents.

Thus, aside from revisiting the planning documents as bases for the zoning ordinance, let us also revisit the process on how we involve the public, the citizens, and most particularly, the landowners. Let’s define their level of involvement. They should not be treated as mere captive audience or listeners, but as sources of valuable inputs in coming up with these planning documents. More often, we conduct public consultations or hearings only to comply with the procedural requirements of the things we do rather than to generate public opinions and inputs. In short, I am more for the quality of the process in achieving social consensus than anything else if only to ensure that, later on, the citizens will not begrudge the local government its authority, and voluntarily comply with the prescribed limits and restraints on the use of their property, for the sake of the general welfare.

The interplay between the executive branch, specifically the CPDO, on one hand, and the legislative branch – the Sanggunian Panglungsod (SP), on the other, in determining and defining the general welfare should be given enough attention. The technical inputs of the CPDO will eventually determine the substance of the zoning ordinance and the quality of the decision of the SP, unless the SP members also do their task in determining the pros and cons of designating land uses throughout the City. What I am trying to say is that the two (2) entities should find no reason to be pointing fingers later on when people question certain legislative decisions pertaining to land uses in the City, or the zoning ordinance, in particular. It is always a convenience excuse on the part of the CPDO to say later on when things go haywire that the SP was the one who made the final decision. Or it will be very easy also for the SP to summon the CPDO later on to explain negative outcomes of legislative actions.

The ideal situation is for the two (2) entities to do their respective tasks in coming up with the zoning ordinance. The CPDO should provide technical inputs to the SP as bases in passing the ordinance. On the other hand, the SP should be vigilant enough to look at various dimensions to ensure that the technical inputs considered the aspirations of the people not only those directly affected by the zoning ordinance but, more importantly, every citizen of the City. And each entity should act expeditiously so that possible and foreseeable undesirable outcomes on the uses of land could be prevented from happening. After all, planning is a deliberate action to bring about development and that includes preventing unwanted kind of development from happening. Let us deliberately put in place the kind of development everybody aspires for.

Up next on this series of articles on Zoning: Zoning — The Political Will