Katrina Stuart Santiago

Guillermo Luz Statement on the NAIA 1 Project

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this briefing on the NAIA project.

This is really about a dream, a vision, for creating a better image of the country through a series of projects, within which people could participate and relive the spirit of Bayanihan. One of these projects was the rehabilitation of the NAIA.

People were invited to participate in this project and work alongside government, and today we will talk about the results of the work that’s been done so far. In this briefing we will touch on the chronology of events and circumstances leading up to this point. It needs to be reiterated that we have only drawn up a plan: a plan that still needs other pieces to complete, that needs to be bid out, and which needs to be implemented.

We undertook this project under the auspices of the National Competitiveness Council or NCC, of which I am co-chairman for the private sector. The NCC, reorganized in April of this year, is a public-private sector advisory council set up to address the improvement of the country’s competitiveness from the bottom third of competitiveness rankings to the top third by 2016. The public sector members of the NCC are the Secretary of Trade and Industry (who serves as co-chairman), Secretary of Finance, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Tourism, Secretary of Education, and NEDA Secretary.

Sometime in mid-March of this year, I was asked by some members of the Economic Cluster of the Cabinet to host a meeting to brainstorm for ideas we could pursue to project a new image for the country. That meeting took place on March 20, a Sunday, with some members of the Cabinet – Secretary Cesar Purisima, Secretary Greg Domingo, Secretary Butch Abad, Secretary Alberto Lim, and Secretary Ricky Carandang – and people from the private sector, among them Josie Natori, Emily Abrera, Fernando Zobel, Kenneth Cobonpue, Budji Layug, Royal Pineda, Brian Tenorio, Junie del Mundo, and Jeannie Javelosa.

At that meeting we talked about the qualities of the country that we could emphasize and project to the world, such as the warmth and hospitality of our people, the creativity of Filipinos, and the natural beauty of the Philippines. We also discussed how we had to convey this message visually and experientially, with a unified voice, and through different channels and venues where people gather or congregate.

Among the ideas we discussed, two projects were identified: (1) the creation of a new country brand and (2) the renovation of the NAIA and the Mactan-Cebu International Airport. Both were seen as a means of conveying a new message about the country – one that would capture our attributes and qualities, at the same time that it would symbolize progress and development. It would also respond to a specific need while becoming a symbol of change. This, the Country Brand was supposed to communicate visually. The NAIA-Mactan airport project was supposed to communicate it experientially.

We closed that March 20 meeting with an agreement to meet one week later to continue the discussion. We met again on March 25 to discuss both projects, during which we also decided to create two groups – one for the Country Brand and one for the NAIA and Mactan Airport project.

Budji, Royal, and Kenneth were invited to join the NAIA and Mactan Airport group while others were invited to the Country Brand group. Both groups worked on a pro-bono basis for months to help the country. I was assigned to head both groups. Each group started work in early April and I am happy to announce that both groups achieved important milestones.

On April 6, our first meeting at the NAIA, the team of Budji, Royal and Kenneth began research and design work on the NAIA, in partnership with its staff. We learned that the four terminals that make up the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) were running at near full capacity, with NAIA running at over its rated capacity. From our discussions, we concluded that all terminals needed to remain in operations even as the government was studying ways to fully operate Terminal 3 and exploring the feasibility of making Clark a new international gateway.

Concurrently, we started exploring the needs of the Mactan-Cebu International Airport. The team travelled to Cebu on several occasions at its own expense to meet with the airport’s General Manager who walked us through the airport and explained to us their plans. Following a few exploratory trips, it was decided that we needed to first concentrate on NAIA before embarking on the Mactan-Cebu Airport project.

Since NAIA would need to continue its operations, it was important to introduce improvements in the flow of operations and services to enhance passenger or customer experience. However, because the building is 30 years old, it was necessary to move carefully so as not to adversely affect the structural integrity of the building. We were informed that MIAA had contracted an engineering firm, P-Square, to undertake this structural integrity check. Its findings have been submitted to NAIA.

In the meantime, discussions on design were started based on NAIA’s own plan to renovate the airport section by section. A decision was made to hold off on any renovation until a full plan could be drawn up. Even the redesign and renovation of Duty Free Philippines, to be done on its own expense, was timed to coincide with NAIA’s overall plan, making sure it would fit into the larger design. A review of office structures, procedures and flows, including the locations of conveyor systems, terminal fee booths, passport control, security screening, immigration booths, and baggage claim areas was also undertaken. As the design process progressed, discussions also included lighting systems, air conditioning requirements, and even the retail mix and locations for specific types of concessionaires.

Another decision made was to differentiate the services available within the airport system, so a review of the staff’s service delivery was also started. For this purpose, the hotel staff of the AIM Conference Center was invited to design a training program for the service staff. They held their own meetings separate from the design group. Plans for inviting Filipino designers to create new uniform designs for the different staff positions, as well as getting curators to manage art installations within the airport terminal were also discussed.

As all these discussions inevitably led to the question of budget limitations, we also talked about possible funding sources that MIAA could tap into to finance the project.

In all of this, the design team fully engaged in discussions with the NAIA staff. Presentations of the design concept were made to the MIAA Management Committee on May 24 and the Economic Cluster on May 25. The team also made a presentation to the MIAA Board on May 26, which adopted the project subject to the availability of funds and formally created a Project Management Office (PMO) and an organizational structure for the project.

During the entire design process, the NAIA PMO and its own team of in-house architects and engineers prepared the detailed architectural drawings under the guidance of the Budji Layug + Royal Pineda firm as the pro-bono consultants. In this way, all technical drawings would automatically be owned and be kept in the possession of NAIA for its own implementation. All the plans and material specifications were used by the PMO for cost estimates as it prepared the bid documents and Invitations to Bid, all of which would be needed for any work to proceed. All architectural perspectives, floor plans, and detailed technical drawings remain with NAIA for its own use.

The concept design went through a long process of discussions, taking into account the need for the structural integrity review. From the beginning, the goal was always one of functionality and ease of use for the airport’s customers and passengers; it was about a melding of both form and function. It was ultimately a plan for a NAIA 1 that we could all take pride in, not just because of how it looks, but more importantly because of how it serves us and the world better.

In the last eight months, I personally witnessed the dedication of this design team and the NAIA PMO, as I chaired almost every major meeting that took place with regards this project. In light of this, I can only be thankful to the designers, the NAIA PMO, all the volunteers who work on the 10 other Working Groups of the NCC, and the Country Brand group. They all give their professionalism, time and effort to unselfishly help the country in our goal to become globally competitive. This Bayanihan spirit, which I see and experience on a daily basis, is what keeps me hopeful and optimistic about our ability as a nation to move forward.

for a PNoy government that talks about the matuwid na daan, which is to say doing things correctly and properly and justly, they sure know how to reveal themselves to be on some dirt road.

so yes, NAIA 1 is the worst airport in the world, i know that, and i will not pretend otherwise. but of course it will take international disgust over the airport for some change to happen, and in October a world-renowned team composed of Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda unveils a plan, one that’s aesthetic yes, but also real and concrete, i couldn’t even imagine that they thought this up and ignored completely the structural and electricomechanical (!) needs of the renovation.

but this is what the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary Mar Roxas wants us to believe, as he defends the decision to go with an architectural team from the Leandro V. Locsin and Associates (LVLA) for the NAIA 1 renovation, unceremoniously dropping the Cobonpue team. Roxas says:

“They <the LVLA> are in possession of the ‘as designed’ and ‘as built’ plans and blueprints of the airport. LVL’s firm has insights that will be of valuable help in minimizing disruption to operations, as well as shorten the time the rehabilitation will take,” Roxas explained in a text message.

In particular, Roxas said LVL knows the exact location of the duct works, risers, pipes, water drainages and other electro-mechanical configurations of the facility.

according to the DOTC (it’s unclear if Roxas himself said this), the LVLA also “had a distinct advantage over any other architectural or engineering firm in the country because its founder, the late Locsin, was Terminal 1’s original designer.”

so hold on. LVLA had the advantage because its founder, National Artist for Architecture Leandro V. Locsin, dead since 1994, designed the original NAIA 1? the LVLA is being unilaterally chosen — with no plan revealed to the public as of yet — because they have the blueprints of the airport and therefore know where the pipes are? because they know where the pipes are?

por dios y por santo.

where has common sense gone? the current LVLA, as with any other architectural and design team, would only be looking at NAIA 1’s blueprints, yes? and let’s say members of the Locsin team that put together the NAIA 1 in 1973-1974 were still alive (of course in their 80s now), even they would only be looking at blueprints and old plans, too, yes? pray tell, how would LVLA be any different from other design teams wanting to renovate the NAIA 1?

there’s obviously so much more to the DOTC’s decision to let go of the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team, and it reeks of kamag-anak / kaibigan / ka-barilan possibilities if you ask me. lucky for the DOTC, the LVLA website’s down and there’s no existing list online of who its architects are. it would’ve made for a fascinating task of connecting the dots straight to ~~Malacanang~~ Roxas office (i hear the connection between him and the Locsins are legendary).

but also there’s this. for a PNoy government that demands our support and understanding, they sure know how to put an end to any form of volunteerism from willing citizens. Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda had been working on the NAIA 1 rehabilitation and renovation plan for the past eight (8!) months. and they find out they’re not part of the project only upon the the announcement that the LVLA was the DOTC’s chosen firm.

and as if that isn’t bad enough, the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team are made to suffer soundbites from Roxas, who says that function was higher in their list of priorities than having the airport look nice; and from MIAA General Manager Jose Angel Hornedo who says they didn’t sign a contract with the Cobonpue team.

aba mga ser. the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team put together that plan because they were asked by the members of PNoy’s Cabinet. puro katrabaho ninyo ang mga ito diba? Trade Secretary Gregory Domingo, Budget and Management Secretary Butch Abad, former Tourism Secretary Alberto Lim, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang? these four requested that the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team work on the NAIA 1 redesign. the government asked them to work on that redesign. and this team agreed to work on it, for free.

kaya po walang kontrata mga ser.

and just because something looks nice doesn’t mean it isn’t functional. why do you even look down on the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team in this way, Sec. Roxas?

in the end this also reeks of an utter lack of professionalism in the halls of Malacanang. it also reveals how little this PNoy government values creativity and hard work, how little it values the time and energy spent by its own citizens wanting to help out for free. that they can even do this to the Cobonpues and Layugs and Pinedas of this country, few as they are na nga, is beyond me.

by the way, this team was also working within a P1B-peso budget for the complete interior and exterior renovation of the NAIA 1 — way cheaper than the government plan that would cost ~~P1.6B~~ P1.16B (!!) pesos to renovate only the airport’s interiors.

PNoy invokes matuwid na daan. let’s begin with admitting the real reasons behind the decision to go with the LVLA, shall we? otherwise, Roxas the DOTC and Malacanang just prove they’re on a dark dreary road, that’s as dirty as we can imagine.

when Malacanang (via Lacierda) invokes the fact that PNoy’s family only has 1% of Hacienda Luisita, what does that mean?

1% of 6443 hectares = 64.43 hectares of land.

what is 64.43 hectares of land?

Intramuros is 64 hectares.
SM Mall of Asia is only 42 hectares
The La Mesa Eco Park is 33 hectares (extraneous to the watershed and forest)
The Heritage Park in Taguig (we’re talking the cemetery) is 76 hectares
Ateneo de Manila University is 83 hectares

1%? STOP USING IT TO EXPLAIN AWAY FEUDALISM.

PS: according to the Supreme Court decision, the Cojuangcos earned a total amount of PhP 1,330,511,500 from selling land.

1% of that is 13,305,115. that’s 13 MILLION, 305 THOUSAND, 115 PESOS. let us not kid ourselves about that 1%.

we should not forget. regardless of the success that is the distribution of Hacienda Luisita among farmer-beneficiaries.

Because there are no words, none worth using to talk about the Ampatuan Massacre, no words worthy of lives lost to such violence, to such power. What we should’ve been was out on the streets, angry, fearless, pointing a finger at (giving the finger to) the system that has been feeding private armies. But none of that happened. Instead we were quiet and enraged, watching the news at home, receiving word about the rumored real reason behind the encounter, which involved anti-Muslim Christian-biased notions of multiple wives and girlfriends and patriarchy.

We were more dead than those 57 people, double-dead because we knew this possible but we waited for it to happen. What can only be worse than that is having illusions about our words being worth anything.

This is my issue with the Anthology of Rage in Verse I. It isn’t even an illusion of change that’s here as it is a notion that it matters at all to anthologize 100 poems, with no titles and just poets’ names, collecting rage about the Ampatuan Massacre into one epic poem by various contributors. It’s no surprise that this notion of continuity is possible, because there isn’t much to look at here, not much to read as far as diversity’s concerned. Because whatever the individual perspectives (which tend to speak generally of grief/anger/brotherhood/hope(lessness)/rising from the ashes) the tendency at romanticizing the death of 57 seems all-encompassing, is really quite the default.^*

This is easy to understand given the established poets’—all of whom submitted poems—defense of the project. There is Marne Kilates’ take on the goals of this anthology, “Protest poetry or poetry against violence is an act of language. It is an instance of language engaging the physical and the experiential, as language always does in everyday speech. But since poetry is not everyday speech, protest poetry or poetry against violence brings the engagement to a higher level.” This higher level’s relationship to poetry and the Ampatuan Massacre is something that Luisa Igloria works with when she says that the murders’ effect on us all should “rightly serve as ballast and ground for the language and lyric of poetry,” where Gemino Abad’s notion of collecting “the finest rage” perfectly fits in.

But what this massacre requires, its goriness, its kabastusan is the language of the everyday. In fact, it requires the use of a language that will hurt because it screams from the gut, shoots from the hip, or is as dirty and angry as those killers were, as fearless as the Ampatuans were/are. To use what is deemed as the high language of poetry, to insist on rage that is fine, or the beauty of poetic language, seems politically incorrect. In fact, poetry such as what’s in this anthology seems politically incorrect.

Because there are many things to do other than write. If writing is your weapon, then there is writing that matters now because it will be read, because it will be relevant, because it isn’t tied up in illusions of beauty and lyricism, highness and artistry.

Because what is relevant, always is. This is why we go back to the Lacaba brothers’ Martial Law poems. This is why we go back to the protest songs, to the songs of the revolution, to poems of nation. This is why books likeDekada ’70 by Lualhati Bautista and State of War by Ninotchka Rosca continue to be reprinted, year after year after year; this is why the Noli Me Tangere, El Filibusterismo, Florante at Laura are deemed national literature required in classes across the country. It is because while it speaks of a different time, it speaks of us now. It is because the reasons for rage against the Ampatuan Massacre have been with us forever, have been here since government ceased to be effective, since families across the country were allowed to keep positions of power, regardless of how.

Real relevant protest literature reminds us of how dangerous the pen is and puts fear in our hearts as we write it. It is here that there is bravery and courage in the act of writing; it is here that there is an amount of danger. Real protest literature is a threat to the always oppressive status quo, it’s something that any tyrant will fear enough to judge it worthy of declaring the suspension of rights to expression.

At the height of relevance, writing in protest puts our lives in danger, it is enough to get us jailed.

Kilates says that it’s possible that “we can never exhaust the subject of violence with impunity and too much random death.” True, but why would we want to? Write about violence when we can do something about it, I mean. When what the Ampatuan Massacre should’ve told us was that all our words that condemn oppression, all our literary work that questions the status quo, ends up being nothing but the status quo because it refuses to be more than just those words, because it is repeated as a mantra, it is celebrated as “the word”, fine and otherwise, and nothing else. It is an end point: this is what I’ve got to say therefore this is what I’ve done.

Luisa Igloria quotes Brecht, “In the dark times, will there also be singing? Yes, there will be singing about the dark times.”

Two hundred five.
One thousand one hundred eighty-eight.
One thousand nine hundred sixty-three.

These are 2001 to 2009 numbers of victims of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and illegal arrests. These are bigger, more urgent numbers, than 57. Where have our poets been through these dark times? Or was the past decade not dark enough? Maybe this was a choice not to speak, not to empathize, not to rage all this time?

Maybe if there was rage then, the Ampatuan Massacre wouldn’t have happened. But then again, that’s giving poets—all of us writers—too much credit. Merlie Alunan says, “<…> let the words flood among us, into us, to grieve, to rage. Maybe to heal this wounded nation.” Ah, but the words that heal this nation don’t come in poems with high language, doesn’t happen on the internet, doesn’t come in any anthology of literary works. It happens on nationwide television, when the media-created messiah says we will be alright, and thousands of the oppressed believe him. There lies the change that disregards our words.

And why there is always reason to rage against the words we use to explain our world. Unless these can kill in the way guns and money and power can, they are nothing but unworthy.
———

Only poems in Filipino and English were read by this reviewer.

Quotes from poets via the comments section of Marne Kilates’ and Joel Salud’s individual Facebook notes defending the anthology.

Data via Karapatan’s 2009 Human Rights Report.

*this was written for High Chair’s 12, 2009-2010, which dealt with the Maguindanao Massacre, the 2nd anniversary of which is today. Read the rest of the High Chair issue here and here and here.