Moreover, he, again in this article, insisted the CoA circular was applicable. This was explained to him during an IBP meeting where he did not interpose any legal basis in his assertion when he said, “so the MCB did not use this CoA circular?” We answered “Yes, as it is not applicable,” to which we did not hear him questioning the position of the MCB.

He also claimed that MCB “applied the depreciated value, and some victim-claimants refused to accept the compensation.” Again, both statements are not true.

The depreciation valuation or ageing of the structure is integrated in the assessment and fair market valuation of structures as provided in the LDS valuation. The MCB cannot cherry-pick the LDS valuation; it has to apply LDS valuation in whole not partially.

It is the taxpayers that pay the compensation, and we have to maintain that public trust. The application of depreciation means that houses built in 2017 will be valued at the current value in 2017, and those houses built in 1997 will also be valued at the current value of the house in 1997.

What Atty. Lanto is proposing is that the houses of 2017 and 1997 should be valued and compensated at the same value. This is against the LDS valuation, and it is a betrayal of the public trust, of the money of the taxpayers if we follow Atty. Lanto’s position.

Atty. Lanto’s vacuous claim that MCB is “stretching its legislated power” is not true. The MCB is not a legislative body to legislate the fair market value of the property. The determination of which is within the competence of local government units mandated by the Local Government Code to issue fair market valuations for assessment. MCB is a quasi-judicial body that applies the law. It applied LDS valuation because the Marawi City’s valuation according to its city assessor was “outdated” or obsolete. And if it was applied it would be unconscionably unjust to the claimants as it is lower by nearly five-fold.

Finally, he stated that the “chair and some members of the MCB are lawyers and yet they forgot that jurisprudence,” but there is no jurisprudence he cited. There is none, Marawi compensation is a sui generis case and we are governed by Republic Act No. 11696. It is the law that we shall follow not his untenable and self-serving interpretation of the law.

We stressed that we had a dialogue with the IBP-Lanao del Sur where he was the leading delegate. For three hours, we discussed how we arrived at the MCB valuation. Our expert on structural valuation, one of the engineer Board Members, illustrated clearly by examples how we arrived meticulously at a proper valuation of each damaged or destroyed structure. We explained to him that factors like type of structure, age of structure and extent of damage to the structure influence the assessment of the value of each structure. During that time, we heard only a very few words from him.

Thus, after the meeting with him and the IBP lawyers, we were utterly surprised that he continued to write in a disparaging style a threatening statement against a national government agency that is performing its function. That Atty. Lanto, as a lawyer, would write threats of violence against the MCB is truly unbecoming and Daily Tribune is a party to this weaponizing language.

“MCB computation based on dubious ordinance (1) and (2)” (26 April & 1 May 2024):

In these articles, he insisted the MCB use an outdated 2011 Marawi City ordinance in the valuation of the properties of the claimants. We had already said that it was unconscionably unjust. The Marawi Siege occurred in May 2017. We cannot use the valuation of 2011 for a property built in 2012 or 2017. It is unjust to the claimants.

amb_mac_lanto@yahoo.com