Thursday, March 26, 2015

Why Uncertain Contract Status of CJHDevCo's Stakeholders?

It seems all is well between the Bases Conversion & Development Authority (BCDA) and the Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDevCo) when the arbitration tribunal handed down the decision to peaceably settle their feud on the occupancy, rentals issues, among others.

Contract Signing
Contract Signing
All Is Well

With such decision of tribunal concerned, CJHDevCo had a peace of mind for the belief that the order handed down becomes enforceable and it should be executed as ordered unless the court would issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or rather to stop it.

For all we know, while this controversy between BCDA and JCHDevCo was gaining momentum, there were third parties under contract with the former. They're subleasing some properties in Camp John Hay. And their contract shouldn't be touched nor affected. In short, it would still be in effect.

Therefore, with the issuance of the Award, the both parties involved would abide with the terms and conditions mentioned therein in good faith and would honor the rights and interests of those stakeholders who were innocent of  the controversy about the camp. Since they're not involved in the dispute between CJHDevCo and the BCDA, they should be well respected and be given due courtesy.

BCDA Harassment

However the good wind that prevails, tends to become unhealthy and unfavorable for the CJHDevCo. It's alleged that those contracting third parties with CJHDevco were embarrassed for they're compelled to concur that the power of attorney cannot be revoked and the BCDA would be allowed to act with whatever necessary to enforce their will on CJHDevCo.

That act of BCDA believed to be a form of harassment to the tenants against their will to “provide BCDA any and all documents, papers and records that BCDA would deem necessary in enforcing the assigned rights against CJHDevCo, and that the tenants will execute any affidavit or sworn statement and testify before any court, tribunal or agency in any proceeding against CJHDevCo, which BCDA may deem necessary.”

“All of these inappropriate actions on the part of the BCDA to strike as hard as they possibly can, and with everything they can muster up, is clearly a blatant abuse of authority. These are irresponsible acts of governance that outright betray the true function and integrity of a government office. These actions are nothing more than abusive bullying tactics that are aimed at satisfying a ‘personal’ vendetta against individuals and corporations in the private sector,” anonymous tenant pointed out.

What's next?

When the officers of CJHDevCov conducted a recent press conference, they made it clear that nothing is amiss on what had been transpired between the CJHDevco and BCDA. The arbitration tribunal  made a decision in favor of CJHDevCo. All those things in questions were true and correct. And it's up now for the public to know and reconsider the issue as to who's telling the truth? BCDA? CJHDevCo?

No comments:

Post a Comment