[ Manila Bulletin Online ] May 29, 2008
By BEN R. ROSARIO
Members of the Oversight Committee in the House of Representatives gave Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) officials a dressing down after it was discovered that they pressed for the deportation of a Taiwanese businesswoman and her son who sued SBMA for the illegal takeover of their golf course business.
Even the usually unflappable neophyte Rep. Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (LP, Camarines Norte) likewise lost her composure by scolding SBMA Chairman Feliciano Salonga for accusing solons of "not paying attention" to what he had to say.
Makati City Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. aired disgust over SBMA’s tactic of informing the Bureau of Immigration (BI) that Taiwanese investor Susan Ho and her son, Jack Hu, no longer have business staying in the Philippines because they are no longer operating the golf course.
"It is really a cheap shot to deport foreign investors just to take him away from the court in order not to meet them face to face. That is not the proper way to deal with the investors," Locsin said. "That is really a low blow."
Northern Samar Rep. Emil Ong sought an investigation on the alleged unfair treatment of the Taiwanese investors by the SBMA after learning that they were booted out of their business despite being able to get a court order against their ejection.
Ho and Hu are the principal stockholders of the United International Group (UIG) of Taiwan that entered into a 50-year lease agreement with the SBMA for the development of the Subic golf course.
They reportedly poured into the project at least R1 billion but later incurred R14 million in rental arrears when business went sour.
UIG lawyer Wilfred Pangan said his clients were forcibly driven away from their business without due notice as required under the law.
Both lawyers, Ong and Locsin said it was wrong for SBMA not to observe due process in its bid to recover the arrears, saying that it is its duty to show investors how the justice system in the country works.
SBMA lawyer Ramon Agregado admitted the eviction was made even without the SBMA exerting any legal effort to collect by filing a collection case against the UIG for its debt totaling R47 million.
______________________________________________________________________
