File Under Oddities: Project Save 182 Misleads Sting into Changing Concert Venue

Appearing to crow about what seems to be a victory of sorts, Project Save 182 lawyer Cheryl Daytec-Yangot posted on Facebook that Sting had moved his concert from the Mall of Asia to the Araneta Coliseum.

Yangot claims to have written to Sting’s representatives and apparently misinformed them that SM had cut the trees that her group were trying to save:

I used to be the lead lawyer in two environmental cases against SM Investment Corporation and SM Prime Holdings-the corporations which own SM Mall of Asia- because of SM’s plan to cut down 182 fully grown trees to expand a mall in Baguio City, the summer capital of the Philippines. NUPL continues to litigate the cases. The site of the expansion is the very birthplace of Baguio City and is believed to have been acquired fraudulently by SM. The planned expansion was temporarily stopped after we got a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO) in April 2012 which SM defiled (which was why a spontaneous rally of more than 6000 people was held on April 10, 2012). SM had to obey the court order but not after it cut down more than 40 trees in the dead of night, behind walls to obstruct public view of what was happening while we were holding a vigil, crying and making appeals for the trees and environment. The cases are still being heard. The lead counsel is now Mr Christopher Donaal.

Never mind that Project Save 182’s misguided environmentalism overlooks that the biggest killers of trees in Benguet are squatters, real estate developers, and AGRICULTURE.  Anyone who has gone deep into the heart of Benguet will probably notice ENTIRE MOUNTAINS turned into vegetable farms.

Yes sir! Instead of the Benguet Pine, you’ll see mountains planted with broccoli, cauliflower, and all kinds of cabbage.

Never mind, too, that other property developers have also removed dozens of pine trees from its property without so much as a whimper coming from Project Save 182.

Grace Bandoy, a native of Baguio City, has had been campaigning for quite some time now against city officials whom she has branded as corrupt and whom she blames for the destruction of Baguio’s beauty.

Lawyer Yangot’s letter to Sting leaves out repeated statements by SM where the following has been asserted:

  • Not a SINGLE tree was cut.
  • The trees were EARTH-BALLED at night.
  • SM is planting 7,000 more pine trees in Baguio City alone and 15,000 more in Benguet.

Oh, and Yangot also probably didn’t mention that most of the development that SM is doing includes the installation of “green features” which include building a rainwater collection facility which can store 7 million liters and minimize  water run offs that trigger landslides. This is something that most developers in Baguio City have not done but should have been doing for decades.

I would have loved to go to Sting’s concert, but after this obvious lack of fact checking just leaves a nasty… er… sting.

print

75 Comments on “File Under Oddities: Project Save 182 Misleads Sting into Changing Concert Venue”

  1. I’m inclined to tip Sting a little credit for being consistent with his advocacy, and I don’t think he was entirely misled. “Earthballing” full-sized trees doesn’t work, and no amount of “green features” in a commercial building makes up for natural environmental features. But, you make a critical point that has been and continues to be entirely lost on the “down with SM” hysteria — SM Baguio is nothing more than an example of a large-scale problem, 99.999% of which will go on unchecked even if the media-savvy protest scores a “victory” against SM.

      1. how exactly did Yangot/Project 182 misled Sting? Your arguments are mere rehash of older arguments already debunked in ongoing court trials as well some more well informed blogs. Earth balling i a mere euphemism. It’s a nicer way of “cutting” trees. It still kills trees as trees earthballed has less than 20% chance of living after being transplanted. Plus, you are failed to be informed that earth balling does not work on all tree species and Benguet pine happens to be one of those tree species because of its deep root system – this has been an argument long presented and proven yet people like you don’t seem to acknowledge, you need to present new arguments.

        yes its true that farming has been indiscriminate these past few years but that does not mean that people can just stop advocating against tree cutting. You’re implying that because Benguet farmers are also indiscriminately cutting trees then we should also let SM earthball (kill/cut) our trees. What kind of an argument is that? You’re also implying that because Project 182 failed to stop other developers from cutting trees that it should also desist from protesting against SM? What the… c’mon man, is that the best argument you have? It’s never too late to protest against the destruction of the environment. There’s nothing personal in the Project 182 movement, nobody handpicked to go against SM. People are just crying foul against the expansion which nobody asked at the expense of trees.

        and those green features you rehashed from SM are baloney. No landslide ever occurred near SM because of flooding because there are trees around it. The drainage system around the mall works perfectly just fine. There are natural drainage systems in that area and it does not need an artificial catch basin from SM. There is no need “catch” all those waters using an SM artifice because the current drainage system does that.. maybe you should go out here observe SM’s current surrounding before rehashing SM’s claim instead of you sitting behind your desk so that you’ll know what you are writing about.

        and again, just because people before never had a protest of this scale against tree cutting in baguio does not mean that people here never protested against otehr developers. there were smaller movements, unorganized, and unrecognized. that does not mean though that since people failed to protest successfully before does not mean that people should stop there.

        1. Cutting is cutting. Earth balling is earth balling and as far as I know, the earth balling was done under the direct supervision of DENR as well as WWF.

          But, of course, perhaps you are more of an expert on this matter that DENR or WWF.

          More over, the point you are missing is that Project Save 182 is too narrowly focused on SM — such that it completely ignores a whole lot of other problems, of which, 182 trees are but a small part of.

          Most of everything else you claim that I implied are figments of your imagination.

          And one more thing man, you don’t seem to understand the relationship between water run off and landslides.

          Huwag ka nang mag-pretend na eksperto ka pare, nakakahiya lang.

        2. This statement from you betrays what little you know about the water problem in Baguio and the rest of Benguet.

          “There is no need “catch” all those waters using an SM artifice because the current drainage system does that.. maybe you should go out here observe SM’s current surrounding before rehashing SM’s claim instead of you sitting behind your desk so that you’ll know what you are writing about.”

          So, excuse me man, while I laugh my head off at you.

        3. Funny thing is, i never projected myself as an expert in my comment nor am I pretending to be one. Because if you’ll tag me as “pretending to be an expert” just based on my comment above then the same can be attributed to you “pretending to be an expert in stating that earth balling works on Benguet Pine Trees” – using the same yard stick.

          Anyway, were you in the court hearings where it was presented that the earth balling performed by SM was poorly done by non-experts, though supervised by DENR? As testified by Dr. bengwayan, he’s the expert not me, Benguet Pine Trees are not suitable for earthballing because of their deep root system. According to him, a Benguet Pine Tree’s root extends even longer than its actual trunk and so no amount of earthball can adequately gather all the roots below it. And once its main root is cut (and it will be cut unless the earthball has a diameter twice the tree probably more) that’ll be the demise of the tree. Again that’s not me speaking, that’s the expert Dr. Bengwayan. And obviously they can’t effectively earthball those trees because they stand so close to each other which necessitates the destruction of one tree just so the nearby tree can be earthballed – i hope you are picturing that my good sir.

          Project 182 is obviously a movement specifically formed against SM’s tree cutting/earth balling activities – so of course it is focused on SM. And just to be clear, I’m not a member of project 182 because i believe some members there are just there for the sake of outing a business competitor like SM. What you missed sir is the fact that a lot of the members of project 182 are members of other environmental groups or are simply environmentalists in their own ways – they’re not ignoring other environmental problems. If project 182 is gathering too much attention it’s because of the publicity it gets from going against a corporation as big as SM. But this does not necessarily mean that its members are tunnel-visioned against SM, not at all sir.

          You can’t just counter an argument by merely stating that they are “figments of my imagination” – don’t squirrel away, you have to decisively argue and raise your points. Your implications are as clear as daylight and it’s upon you to prove otherwise.

          And one thing too sir, I do understand the relationship between water run off and landslide. But I do understand too that water run off is unlikely in SM’s current grounds because one there are trees around it, if these trees are cut/earthballed, then that’d likely cause run-off, which causes landslide. In the past, there were no landslides near SM Baguio – because there were no run off. Show me a link which proves or shows that a landslide ever happened near SM Baguio’s ground. Second, there is a natural drainage system in SM’s grounds so there is really no need for their claim to build a catchbasin for rainfalls. Again, please go to Baguio, observe, and don’t create conjectures from just one side of the issue.

          I am not passing myself off as an expert. Again, nowhere in my original comments did I say I am. If such judgment can be thrown against me then then the same can be thrown against you – passing yourself as an expert and telling everybody that earthballing works – but of course that’s not a fair assumption so please stop making unfair attributions – I know Jesus Christ did not – so must a good Christian – peace! 🙂

        4. I never tagged you as an expert and never claimed to be an expert myself.

          But I know what cutting a tree means and I know what earth balling is, and take my word for it — they are completely different actions. So when Yangot says trees were cut, she was being inaccurate and probably deliberately so.

          The thing is you present claims here that are unattributed which make it seem that this is something you know because you are an authority on the matter.

          And I quote you:

          “Earth balling i a mere euphemism. It’s a nicer way of “cutting” trees. It still kills trees as trees earthballed has less than 20% chance of living after being transplanted. Plus, you are failed to be informed that earth balling does not work on all tree species and Benguet pine happens to be one of those tree species because of its deep root system – this has been an argument long presented and proven yet people like you don’t seem to acknowledge, you need to present new arguments.”

          How do you know all these things? Do you know, for a fact, that earth balling IS a euphemism as a way of saying that it doesn’t work?

          How can you say that it only works 20 percent of the time? Do you have the data to prove this?

          Or, are you just repeating (cutting and pasting) something that you read somewhere?

          No, you are no expert and I never said you were — either pretending or seeming.

          And as for rehashing things, I think I can say the same thing about you. But what of it?

          This isn’t a contest that is being graded on originality, right?

          And as for Dr. Michael Bengyawan, it seems his credibility is… er… incredible:

          http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/08/01/sm-baguio-trial-unmasks-critics/

          a few uncomfortable moments when a lawyer for the defendants started questioning Dr. Michael Bengwayan, a witness presented as an “expert” by the complainants calling themselves the Cordillera Global Network. Bit by bit, the defense lawyers hacked away at Bengwayan’s independence—in the process revealing that the witness (who describes himself as a “communitarian environmental worker, journalist, writer and educator”) is actually one of the complainants himself. Ergo, he should not be entered as an independent, neutral “expert” because obviously, he would not be in a position to provide unbiased opinion regarding the civil case docketed as No. 7595-R, Happy Hour sources commented.

          The sala of Baguio RTC Branch 5 presided by Judge Antonio Estevez must have literally felt like a hot seat after Bengwayan, whose prolific articles on the age, health and oxygen production capacity of the said 182 trees portrayed him as an expert, was forced to admit that he had not made any scientific study to accurately determine the age and health of the trees. In its complaint, the Cordillera Global Network also asserted that “each of the trees that are more than 100 feet and are 18-inch in diameter at its base produces 6,000 pounds of oxygen”—a statement that Bengwayan for some strange reason had forgotten—only to have his memory return when defense lawyers showed a copy of his bylined article for the Igorot Journal, Happy Hour sources relayed.

          In the same article, the communitarian asserted that “each of those trees absorb 45 pounds of carbon every year, thus all 182 trees absorb some 8,190 pounds of carbon annually, making the air cooler and ridding the atmosphere of harmful CO2.” But a big surprise was the defense disclosure that Bengwayan’s authoritative statements seem to have been copied from a foreign article publishing the exact same information—seemingly without proper attribution. (The revelation made Happy Hour guzzlers scramble for a dictionary to check the definition of plagiarism.)

      2. “Paul Farol says:
        October 22, 2012 at 1:50 am
        This statement from you betrays what little you know about the water problem in Baguio and the rest of Benguet.

        “There is no need “catch” all those waters using an SM artifice because the current drainage system does that.. maybe you should go out here observe SM’s current surrounding before rehashing SM’s claim instead of you sitting behind your desk so that you’ll know what you are writing about.”

        So, excuse me man, while I laugh my head off at you.”

        Wut?? how can we make a reasonable conversation when you keep throwing “arguments” like this?? Nowhere in your article did you explain, prove or show that there is an existing water run off issue near SM’s grounds. There are water run off issues existing elsewhere in Baguio and Benguet – that I acknowledge but in SM Baguio, nah. C’mpn man, you have to make an intelligent argumentation here.

        1. Any body who has been to Baguio and other parts of Benguet will tell you one thing… Water shortage is a problem throughout the uplands.

          Malls use a lot of water and catching water from rain, then re-using it, actually conserves the water that will otherwise just flow down the drain.

          When water goes down the drain, it doesn’t disappear in a black hole. It goes somewhere and that somewhere is in drains that empty out somewhere further down or “runs off” on sloping ground.

          This water sometimes seeps into crevices or gets soaked up by the earth. If this happens in an area that susceptible to a landslide, it will cause a landslide.

          Now SM, in building a rain water collection facility, is not only conserving water thereby making more water available to more people, but is also keeping it from running off to areas where it may weaken rock structures that may cause a landslide.

          So, at least, SM is doing “something” which I doubt can be said the same of the hundreds if not thousands of other developments in Baguio City.

          Now, I don’t want to waste my time lecturing you on this. Just think about it, and read some more, and hopefully things will begin to make sense.

        2. “Paul Farol says:
          October 22, 2012 at 2:57 am
          Any body who has been to Baguio and other parts of Benguet will tell you one thing… Water shortage is a problem throughout the uplands.

          Malls use a lot of water and catching water from rain, then re-using it, actually conserves the water that will otherwise just flow down the drain.

          When water goes down the drain, it doesn’t disappear in a black hole. It goes somewhere and that somewhere is in drains that empty out somewhere further down or “runs off” on sloping ground.

          This water sometimes seeps into crevices or gets soaked up by the earth. If this happens in an area that susceptible to a landslide, it will cause a landslide.

          Now SM, in building a rain water collection facility, is not only conserving water thereby making more water available to more people, but is also keeping it from running off to areas where it may weaken rock structures that may cause a landslide.

          So, at least, SM is doing “something” which I doubt can be said the same of the hundreds if not thousands of other developments in Baguio City.

          Now, I don’t want to waste my time lecturing you on this. Just think about it, and read some more, and hopefully things will begin to make sense.”

          I know that, I don’t need anyone telling me that because I live here. In our barangay, water is only schdeuled during TThS, so yeah, there is water problem in the city of pines. And again, like I told you, I understand the concept of water run off leading to landslide but you missed the part where I said it does not happen in SM grounds or in its adjoining areas perhaps even within its 1 kilometer radius because that part of the city has an efficent enough drainage system which leads to nearby creeks. Rainwater falling on SM grounds does not go, say to Mankayan, Benguet, and cause landslide there. And again, that water run-off argument which SM has been advancing is a mere afterthought (in case you don’t know since you are not from here, I think you are just a publicist / paid blogger for SM since your blog title “Project Save 182 Misleads Sting into Changing Concert Venu” has a striking similarity from a news release from SM). SM’s initial (and primary) reason for cutting, (take note CUTTING, because even earth balling was a mere afterthought), was to expand their mall. There was no mention of water run-off issues. This argument was only conveniently thought up when public sentiments against a not-so-needed mall was heightening.

          Just think about it too. Perhaps come up here and observe and everything will make sense. Or perhaps not since you are someone’s publicist.

      3. Paul Farol says:
        October 22, 2012 at 2:40 am
        I never tagged you as an expert and never claimed to be an expert myself.

        But I know what cutting a tree means and I know what earth balling is, and take my word for it — they are completely different actions. So when Yangot says trees were cut, she was being inaccurate and probably deliberately so.

        The thing is you present claims here that are unattributed which make it seem that this is something you know because you are an authority on the matter.

        And I quote you:

        “Earth balling i a mere euphemism. It’s a nicer way of “cutting” trees. It still kills trees as trees earthballed has less than 20% chance of living after being transplanted. Plus, you are failed to be informed that earth balling does not work on all tree species and Benguet pine happens to be one of those tree species because of its deep root system – this has been an argument long presented and proven yet people like you don’t seem to acknowledge, you need to present new arguments.”

        How do you know all these things? Do you know, for a fact, that earth balling IS a euphemism as a way of saying that it doesn’t work?

        How can you say that it only works 20 percent of the time? Do you have the data to prove this?

        Or, are you just repeating (cutting and pasting) something that you read somewhere?

        No, you are no expert and I never said you were — either pretending or seeming.

        And as for rehashing things, I think I can say the same thing about you. But what of it?

        This isn’t a contest that is being graded on originality, right?

        And as for Dr. Michael Bengyawan, it seems his credibility is… er… incredible:

        http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/08/01/sm-baguio-trial-unmasks-critics/

        a few uncomfortable moments when a lawyer for the defendants started questioning Dr. Michael Bengwayan, a witness presented as an “expert” by the complainants calling themselves the Cordillera Global Network. Bit by bit, the defense lawyers hacked away at Bengwayan’s independence—in the process revealing that the witness (who describes himself as a “communitarian environmental worker, journalist, writer and educator”) is actually one of the complainants himself. Ergo, he should not be entered as an independent, neutral “expert” because obviously, he would not be in a position to provide unbiased opinion regarding the civil case docketed as No. 7595-R, Happy Hour sources commented.

        The sala of Baguio RTC Branch 5 presided by Judge Antonio Estevez must have literally felt like a hot seat after Bengwayan, whose prolific articles on the age, health and oxygen production capacity of the said 182 trees portrayed him as an expert, was forced to admit that he had not made any scientific study to accurately determine the age and health of the trees. In its complaint, the Cordillera Global Network also asserted that “each of the trees that are more than 100 feet and are 18-inch in diameter at its base produces 6,000 pounds of oxygen”—a statement that Bengwayan for some strange reason had forgotten—only to have his memory return when defense lawyers showed a copy of his bylined article for the Igorot Journal, Happy Hour sources relayed.

        In the same article, the communitarian asserted that “each of those trees absorb 45 pounds of carbon every year, thus all 182 trees absorb some 8,190 pounds of carbon annually, making the air cooler and ridding the atmosphere of harmful CO2.” But a big surprise was the defense disclosure that Bengwayan’s authoritative statements seem to have been copied from a foreign article publishing the exact same information—seemingly without proper attribution. (The revelation made Happy Hour guzzlers scramble for a dictionary to check the definition of plagiarism.)

        REPLY: You did tag me as pretending to be an expert though.. which I never pretended to be..

        You’re missing the point of the argument sir. It is true that there are technical and real diffences between tree cutting and earth balling but earth balling is not applicable to all tree species like the Benguet Pine Tree and so if you’ll earth ball a Benguet Pine Tree it’s as if you are cutting it down because it is sure to die. Earth balling may work for any other tree specie say for instance an alnus tree but still, an alnus tree earth balled will have less than 20% survival rate. This can be observed among the trees already observed. 49 of the 182 trees were earth balled despite a TRO (TEPO) issued and some of these 49 earth balled trees are now showing signs of decay.

        Me calling earth balling as a euphemism of tree cutting is a matter of opinion and this opinion is in the context of earth balling being applied to pine trees. And you seem to be forgetful, read your post above where you accused me and I quote: “Huwag ka nang mag-pretend na eksperto ka pare, nakakahiya lang.” and this one: “But, of course, perhaps you are more of an expert on this matter that DENR or WWF.”

        Where did I get the data that there is less than 20% survival rate for a tree earth balled? I read of course and I did not say I conducted my own studies. Besides, if you attack my argument that way, perhaps I can attack your argument in the same way: How did you know that SM’s proposed rainwater collection facility can store 7 million liters of rainwater? How do you know thatb thing? Do you have the data for this?

        The data I have as regards a tree’s survival rate when earth balled is obviously a second hand knowledge which I read from various blogs and from testimonies and statements by Dr. Bengwayan, whose credibility as an environmentalist cannot be simply eradicated by a mere lapse of procedure during hearing. Besides, it is a common occurence for party litigants to be called to the witness stand. Sure there may be a procedural lapse but did that procedural lapse take away Dr. Bengwayan’s credential as an environmental expert? Definitely no! It may render his testimony inadmissible in court but you cannot take away the soundness of the argument. And speaking of procedural lapse, a graver lapse can be attributed to DENR for issuing the earth balling permit without the required public consultation. It’s mini-forest that SM wants to eradicate here not just a mere flower garden. There should have been a public consultation but DENR failed to facilitate one before granting the permit. An error which was admited by DENR.

        You still failed to address some of my arguments and merely call them figments of my imagination.

    1. I’m from Baguio, and it irks me a lot that SM decided to put up their huge-ass mall at the middle of the city’s central business district. I opine that despite whatever “green architecture” spin SM wants to put on their expansion, little of what they say can ever justify the uprooting of trees in their property.

      This mess wouldn’t have happened in the first place if it wasn’t for Baguio’s feudal political duo (Mauricio Domogan and Bernardo Vergara), who (long story cut short) railroaded the process for giving SM’s expansion permit, done behind closed doors and with virtually no government transparency. In the end it’s all about Philippine politics gone haywire.

        1. “Paul Farol says:
          October 22, 2012 at 3:14 am
          Apparently, while you claim that Project Save 182 was created to primarily protest against the earth-balling of trees, it strangely has gone on to wage a rather unsuccessful campaign for people to boycott SM.

          Moreover, it has also pursued a campaign against the entire SM brand.

          And yet, it conveniently turns a blind eye to other environmental atrocities, much larger than the earth balling of trees.”

          REPLY: Again, yes primarily. Them choosing to ban SM is entirely their prerogative albeit a deviation from their main cause that may be their subsidiary concern and they may even make it their principal concern now for all we care. But it’s their group, you may want to start your own group protest against Project 182 and deviate from it for all you want – but that is not a good reason to not support the protest against the cutting/earth balling of trees at SM Baguio.

          You are too focused in discrediting Project 182 but not the environmental cause (perhaps because you really can’t attack the good cause – just the imperfect people behind it). It’s as if you are saying that before we protest the cutting/earth balling of trees at SM Baguio, we should already have a solid track record of being environmental activists under our belt. Well how about us who’s first real experience of environmental activism is this? Don’t we have the right to go air our sentiments and concerns just because we have never protested against other tree cutting activities before? Again to reiterate, you can’t really hear Project 182 per se protesting against indiscriminate mining or other environmental concerns because its individual members do so in some other capacities. It seems that you want project 182 to be all over the place before you’ll say “oh that’s a legit environmental group”. That’s being condescending.

    1. Well, one ee-vil company is a target social-media limited minds can manage. Sort of. An entire city, or province, or society is too much for most people to grasp.

  2. Fear not my friends…. When UN Agenda 21 is fully implemented there will be hundreds of billions trees and just 9 billion people left on earth to be used as drones to serve the Elites.

    1. “Paul Farol says:
      October 22, 2012 at 3:10 am
      So, would you care to enlighten us about the background of some of the members of Project Save 182 who have been involved in other environmental causes? What are their backgrounds?”

      REPLY: Obviously I can’t name drop but most of project 182 members, or those who identify with it are simple folks and environmentalists in their own right. Some of them are advocates of greenpeace, some of them are members of the baguio environmental action network, some of them are advocates against indiscriminate mining, some of them are part of the movement “save the balili river”.

      DISCLAIMER: I’m not a meber of project 182 and I can’t speak for them or any of their members. Like some of the people here, I dislike some aspects of project 182 but unlike you, Mr. Farol, I am not discounting an environmental cause just because my other fellows in the same side of the battlefield are people I don’t really get alowng with well. We may have opposed idiosyncracies in some other aspects but that’s not a ground for me not to join their good cause. I’m not that narrow minded.

  3. I eventually concluded that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Save 182 Movement and SM. They both claim that that they’re “environmentalists,” they both claim that God is on “their side,” they both target each other as “evil,” they both use feudal political means for their ends, they both use celebrity endorsements as means to “win hearts and minds,” and they both downplay or even keep out their own dirty laundry.

    Case in point: a certain local artist tied himself to a tree last summer for an hour at Session Road in protest of SM’s actions, and yet he performed at SM’s Mall of Asia anyway. There was almost no reaction from BOTH sides about this flip-flopping.

    GRP had better prepare for the influx of so-called “environmentalist” sentimentality that would invade the comments section of this article!

    As for SM and Save 182, they’re not fooling me, neither the people who they’ve branded as “fence-sitters.” They’re both hypocrites.

    1. Let me just re-paste my comment from Ilda’s article last April 15, 2012, as case in point:

      The protesters are notoriously silent and hypocritical about their “allies for the cause.” For example, Goshenland (a local developer) was accepted on their side; perhaps to keep their movement “credible,” the protesters are silent about the fact that Goshenland is responsible for cutting thousands upon thousand of pine trees around the Baguio area for their residential developments.

      The protesters would counteract by saying, “let’s not distract ourselves with these other things and just focus on SM’s trees, which are the much bigger issues.” If there’s a bigger show of eco-hypocrisy than this, especially by so-called “environmentalists,” then I haven’t seen it yet.

      1. Yeah, when I brought up the larger environmental destruction posed by mountains turned into vegetable terraces, the Project Save 182 sympathizers called it a ‘red herring’.

        Yeah, better vegetables than malls.

        However, if you thought about it, agriculture also produces greenhouse gases as well as taints water with pesticides and fertilizers.

        Moreover, vegetable farms as well as rice farms destroy a lot more ecology than, say, mining — which is another key industry in Benguet.

        1. Hence the hypocrisy. Neither SM nor Save 182 could admit any of their errors, despite whatever “errors” they claim against each other.

      2. yes this is a true argument.. this is one reason i do not identify with the project 182 movement. but to use this as an argument to not go against SM’s earthballing/tree cutting in baguio is preposterous. i mean seriously people? just because the character of other protesters is questionable does not automatically mean that the other side is the “good side”. geez… you can still go against SM’s tree cutting activities here in baguio and not identify with the project 182 movement.. (oh and I’m not referring to you MidwayHaven, i’m referring to other commenters here).

        1. I didn’t say SM was the good side. If at all, I am saying that SM is doing what malls and other developers do — which is cover up vast swathes of land with concrete.

          So, while Project Save 182 Triumphalists are doing the rah-rah-rah-we’re-so-great-because-Sting-cancelled-his-concert-at-MOA dance around the bonfire, a greater atrocity continues all over Benguet.

          They are so narrowly focused on 182 trees, they don’t see the whole province smoldering in vast plumes of mercury vapors from mining and methane from over fertilized vegetable farms.

        2. “Paul Farol says:
          October 22, 2012 at 1:19 am
          I didn’t say SM was the good side. If at all, I am saying that SM is doing what malls and other developers do — which is cover up vast swathes of land with concrete.

          So, while Project Save 182 Triumphalists are doing the rah-rah-rah-we’re-so-great-because-Sting-cancelled-his-concert-at-MOA dance around the bonfire, a greater atrocity continues all over Benguet.

          They are so narrowly focused on 182 trees, they don’t see the whole province smoldering in vast plumes of mercury vapors from mining and methane from over fertilized vegetable farms.”

          Again, project 182 was primarily created to protest against SM’s tree cutting/earth balling activities. But this does not mean that individual members are not engaging in other environmental activities outside project 182. If you’re not hearing news about other environmental movements, it’s simply because it’s on a smaller scale or less publicized.

        3. So, would you care to enlighten us about the background of some of the members of Project Save 182 who have been involved in other environmental causes? What are their backgrounds?

        4. Apparently, while you claim that Project Save 182 was created to primarily protest against the earth-balling of trees, it strangely has gone on to wage a rather unsuccessful campaign for people to boycott SM.

          Moreover, it has also pursued a campaign against the entire SM brand.

          And yet, it conveniently turns a blind eye to other environmental atrocities, much larger than the earth balling of trees.

  4. And I still admire and support save 182 for fighting this SM corporation which had taken over most of the philippines and had instilled the cheap malling culture in the whole of the philippines. The point is some group is out there trying to fight this multi billion peso Chinese corporation that gets whatever licenses and approval it needs from the country. Heck it’s stronger than our own government this SM. it kills competition –walang Tesco! Walang Ikea! Carrefour! Puro SM everywhere na napaka cheap ng mentality. They have cut down many trees In Clark Pampanga too and they have been rallied against but of course they get their way sa Pinas. They don’t make the community look good only their surroundings and perimeters they spend money on, atleast the Ayala builds surrounding areas for the community to compare. A local guy can bribe some local staff sa gobyerno, sila pa kaya para magextend. I always stand and support the groups that gives their time and effort to protecting/trying to she’d light on environmental issues despite their flaws. The point is, people have had enough of their malls everywhere. pinapatay hindi lang puno, but they kill competition which is v bad for us consumers! save 182 well done! sting well done! Am have uprooted so many trees everywhere in the philippines. Their like a country that takes over control of everything without your even knowing.

    1. Ewan ko, pero Project Save 182 is nothing more than an Anti-SM group and I wouldn’t be surprised kung kagaya yan ng isang hakot crowd. Inconsistent ang pagiging environmentalist nila eh, really.

      Parang bigla na lang sumulpot.

      1. sir farol, project save 182 is composed of people who love the trees of baguio. im one of them, residente ako ng baguio. dito ako lumaki. marami sa amin ang di pabor sa expansion ng SM. walang hakot crowd. wala kang gaanong alam sa sitwasyon dito liban sa mga nababasa mo. kung laking baguio ka, malamang iba pananaw mo ngaun. isa itong umpisa na pumukaw sa kamalayan ng mga tagabaguio. magbasa ka pa. i encourage you to join our group. umpisahan mo basahin mula sa pinakaunang mga posts. makikita mo na karamihan sa mga myembro dito e mga hindi magkakakilala…

        1. I am from Baguio, and I live in Baguio. I was once part of Save 182, until I found out that many of the members actually have ulterior motives, much of it political in nature.

          It doesn’t help that many of Save 182’s members resort to personal attacks (some of them against my family and friends) when they find out someone supports SM. It doesn’t help that you resort to populist sentiment to gain votes on your side–just like SM. Worse, it doesn’t help that while you were targeting SM you were so silent on Goshenland’s cutting of thousands of trees in their residential developments, as well as the single-day cutting of 200+ trees near the San Luis area.

          Save 182 was supposed to be the premiere environmental network of Baguio, but sadly, in the end, its attempts to gather members for its cause is no different than SM’s absolutely PATHETIC campaigns to rally people to its cause. In my opinion, there is no difference between SM and Save 182. They claim to be “for the environment,” but they BOTH fail in that measure.

          They’re both losers.

        1. Typical Pinoy mentality; just because a person has an opposing view by the majority, they’re immediately branded a “paid hack.”

        2. There goes that ‘paid hack’ accusation again.

          When someone writes something against Noynoy, that someone is accused of being a ‘paid hack’. When someone writes something against Charice Pempengco, that someone is accused of being a ‘paid hack’ too.

          Sus! As if I could be paid for having this much fun… Hahaha!

          Aminin niyo na kasing mga PS182 kayo, anti-SM lang kayo at convenient lang itong 182 trees.

          Yang si Karlo Altomonte, diba dating performer yan sa SM Baguio? Baka naman nag-aalborota yan dahil wala na siyang gig sa SM Baguio.

          Puh-leeeez!

    1. Then good for him; but if I’m not mistaken from his post it’s not because he’s anti-SM, it’s just that he has other business to do at that time.

  5. Even the DENR doesn’t have a manual/standard for earthballing. Even SM’s own witness testified in court that it is not advisable to earthball Pine Trees. The best result that can be expected from earthballing is a 17% success rate – or at least 150 of the 182 trees will die. That is if SM conducts the earthballing procedure properly – an inspection of the expansion site belied that.Decide for yourself – https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150833083113436&set=vb.609613435&type=2&theater

    That hill lies directly above schools, the removal of the trees there, whatever the method, will significantly reduce the hills water absorption capability and concreting the area will increase water run off to lower lying areas, increasing the risk of landslides and flooding.

    Pine trees are an integral part of the city’s heritage. Luneta hill was the site of the very first structure built in preparation for Kafagway’s transformation into a hill station we now know as Baguio.

    1. KMA, I am assuming you are Karlo Marko Altamonte.

      Just a few quick questions because another friend and I are having a discussion.

      Are those pine trees endemic to Benguet? In short are they of the same variety as the Benguet Pine?

      Is your basis for stating the 17 percent success rate for earth balling based on the case of the 400 plus trees earth balled by Camp John Hay in the 1990’s?

      http://www.thepoc.net/thepoc-features/what-on-earth/what-on-earth-features/15672-baguio-residents-say-no-to-cutting-of-trees.html

      “Bengwayan added, “a tree with a diameter of more than 15 cm has less survival chance. In the late 1990s, some 497 pine trees were earth-balled by Camp John Hay Development Corp but only less than 20% survived and those not dead are showing signs of deteriorating.”

      Moreover, as far as procedures for earth balling is concerned, I don’t think at all any organization can prescribe a “standard” for it. A lot of it has to do with the situation of the trees to be transplanted and this can vary greatly.

      Nevertheless, articles in other websites do say that survival of transplanted trees are at 50 percent or less.

      But there IS a procedure which, I think, should include figuring out the over all health of the trees as well as special care before and after the trees are transplanted.

      http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/urban_tree_care/forlf17.htm

      As for the concern of water run off, which I think is crucial, I think only SM Baguio is the only development there that is building a rain water collection facility.

      Are other buildings there similarly equipped? Are water collection facilities in buildings a standard in Baguio?

      1. On one side, I have this gut feeling that SM’s water collection facility would actually be more of a detriment to the already-dwindling water resources of Baguio; imagine having a near-monopoly on water which is of a higher elevation than the rest of Session Road. It’s sickening, really.

        Then again, one of Baguio’s other retail establishments (which curiously supports Save 182’s anti-SM initiative) has a drainage system that leads DIRECTLY to the Burnham Park lagoon.

        1. @MidwayHaven

          But you also have to remember that currently our cities rainwater to do not count as clean/potable water. They are kind of like “greywater” given how polluted the air is. Without treatment, the best use for the rainwater is landscaping or cleaning/building maintenance and flushing the toilets (excluding the lavatories and/or showers).

        2. Let me add that in Mankayan, the people there are asking help from NGOs to help them build rain-water storage facilities to help ease the water shortage during the dry months.

          I think most of their water there comes from the clouds.

      2. Rainwater catchment basins are actually common in Baguio, especially in the less-sparse suburbs such as Bakakeng, Balacbac and Tuding. We have one at home, and it’s convenient especially for washing machine water and toilet flush.

        It irks me that a lot of people here (many of them from Baguio) are demanding the government for such, when it’s actually VERY easy to create one. I guess it goes all the way back to how the typical Pinoy wants everything done for them.

    2. @KMA

      I actually have heard from tree suppliers long ago that earthballing “old” trees is not adviseable so you can clearly see what is being done as a standard when new landscaping works are done. They start off with young trees so they have a chance to adapt to the soil conditions as well as the weather.

      But as for slope protection, there are lots of standards in engineering and construction in order to deal with this. As long as done properly and correctly, there shouldn’t be an issue with this.

      Flooding is not about just absorption into the soil (as the ground and trees don’t really have a high volume absorption rate) but actually dependent on the outlet volume capacity, either natural or man made drainage. Assuming at point A (source) has a outgoing flow rate of 1000 gallons per minute (assuming only), then in the middle there is a choke where the flow rate is only 500 gallons per minute. This will create a bottle neck and choke the system in between the source and the choke point. This could cause the flooding.

      During heavy volume of rain/downpour over an extended period of time, the soil will end up being too wet already and it can not absorb as much/anymore. You really are dependent on the drainages really and not the soil to the best of my understanding.

      1. Plus it also a fact that old trees do not produce as much oxygen nor do they take in as much carbon dioxide compared to younger trees that are still growing.

        I have read this from 2 sources back in my college days and this is something that the environmentalists sometimes fail to consider.

        I do not mean to say cut down old trees, but rather, if the objective is CO2 -> O2 air exchange, then advocate planting new trees, it is just a matter of how “young” those trees really are to be “exchanged for in the event of a cutting that may need to be done.

        Just a fact I would like to raise.

        Cheers!

  6. Hello Paul,

    I will have to assume that you aren’t at all from Baguio.

    I was once part of that 182 until, like Midway, I found that there are people within the group that are complete dumbshits. I have since kept my distance from them.

    Having said that, and being 100% Baguio bushman myself, there is that relationship to pine trees that perhaps you (assuming you are a lowlander) and many outsiders (Lisa Araneta excluded, begging your pardon) can never figure. And we have always been vigilant for our trees. We have however been massively outnumbered by immigrants and haul-ins who have unfortunately become voters in Baguio. These are the human trash who squatted on hillsides and ruined the copses and aquifers thanks to those foreigners Domogan and Vergara. And those immigrants and their politicians have been making it hard for Baguio people ever since. It is only now that thanks to the internet and social media (and the anonymity it provides) that Baguio folk find out that there are others of like mind and that they can band together and make a difference. Baguio people are now better informed and more vocal against immigrants and carpet-baggers, and use the internet to say so, without the hassle of getting physically abused if they make such a proclamation openly at Malcolm square.

    I have been planting and tending pine trees a lot as well, and not because the government or school made me do it. I may not have the paper that says that I am an expert by any means, but I do know my trees. Benguet pine trees aren’t your lumber-mill pine that become pallets and shipping crates. Benguet pines are hardwoods, and take many years to grow. The Ibaloi used pine for their homes and notably, for their coffins, because unlike most other woods, Benguet pine has it’s own pest-control fluids that lasts centuries. That’s how Ibaloi rice is preserved for years, and how Ibaloi mummies are made. And just to confirm what others have said here, whatever earthballing happened was done wrong and it ended up killing the trees that were “earthballed.” At any rate, the trees themselves keep the soil in Luneta Hill stable and anchored.

    SM was never sincere in presenting its case for cutting trees down in Luneta, and there is proof that it barreled through DENR to fake out the “social acceptability”. And there is proof that corruption in City Hall had a hand in it. This is what the umbrage is about, and not necessarily because there are 182 trees getting cut down. Underneath all that drama, Sting be damned, is that people are getting more vocal, and the politicians have been put on notice. And developers are now up to justifying their projects from a different tack.

    Now I see that you have bought into what SM has said about the “green-ness” of their facility. No real Baguio person would believe their claims because Luneta Hill is mostly clay. Any digging into it at the scale that SM proposes will cause geological stress on the soil and actually aggravate any existing condition there now. The old Pines Hotel never had any problems of shfting clay because they built light and along clean lines. SM insisted on building along its trademark shoebox architecture and built heavy. The present structure (again barreled through City Hall) is the maximum limit the hill can support. Any more of that “development” and it will slide into where UC and Comelec now stand.

    Finally, add to that the fact that SM did what Wal-Mart is doing and killed many small and medium family retail stores (who would gladly want to see SM go under), and you have a city that has had enough of lowlander carpetbaggers and corrupt City Hall employees. The blowback of course is that thanks to SM and its dealing with corrupt bureaucrats, is that Baguio people have become suspicious of all big investments that should actually be welcomed, like the development of Atheltic Bowl and the expansion of the Export Zone.

    Those 182 folks are a braggy lot, but I think that this time they are in the right. Manila people would like to think that Baguio belongs to all Filipinos and should be shared. Nobody would disagree with that, but let the Baguio people heal their city first. Baguio City lost its ambience thanks to Manila-style politics and business being forced on our unique geography and history.

    1. I would neither want to ally myself with corporate zombie overlords SM nor with brainless paranoiacs like the Save 182 Movement. One is lying, the other is stupid. None of them have their brains or their hearts in the right place. I don’t go around boasting about my environmental activities and posting photos about them on Facebook (just like these two groups do), and then use them “para mang-inggit ng tao” — again, just like these two groups do.

      Neither SM nor Save 182 are sincere, neither are they “the good guys.” They claim to do their activities “for love of Baguio,” but they have people gambling in the political backrooms of power for convenient leverage.

      In the end, both SM and Save 182 are reflections of Domogan and Vergara: smiling faces for the public, but dipshits at their very core.

    2. See there. I was careful in pointing out that certain statements were from SM. Perhaps I should have emphasized here that I do not necessarily believe SM’s claims and would love to check scrutinize their claims.

      So far, they claim that no trees were cut and that they’re planting more trees for the ones that they balled up. If only there was a way for me to verify this, I would.

      The thing is, if those trees have some historical value to them (like if they were planted by General McArthur or Burnham or some other American dignitary) then that would be a whole other issue. Those trees, therefore, cannot be replaced by any measure.

      I don’t know much about the load that the geology of Baguio can hold, so I guess I will have to take an expert’s opinion on the matter. Are you a geologist or engineer? If not, then, well… what’s your business saying that SM Baguio had exceeded the load limit for the area where they put their mall?

      Wouldn’t that be detrimental to SM’s business and their substantial investment to build something that could just slip down on Comelec, as you claim?

      You must be a genius to have figured out that the engineering firm or contractors that built SM Baguio had made a mistake in their calculations. That firm should be sued!

      But seriously, your claim doesn’t make sense and sorry, I doubt that it’s true.

      As for the businesses that you claim have been driven out by SM, what businesses are those?

      Since the 1990 earthquake, session road has been looking uglier and uglier. The shops that moved out never returned and most of the buildings remained in ruins.

      The thing is, most of the businesses that you’ll find are probably those small hole in the wall shops or street side vendors or tiangges with people peddling more or less the same cheap wares.

      There were restaurants of note along session road, but for the most part, they never evolved beyond what they were for years.

      Before SM Baguio, ang naging bago lang yata sa Session road is Don Henricos and a few ‘coffee shops’.

      Yung Market at the bottom of Session road, kung ano ang itsura nya nung bata pa ako (70’s) parang ganun pa rin.

      I accompanied Mar Roxas to Baguio as his staff nuong 2003 and the guy told the market vendor’s association that to compete with SM Baguio, it had to raise the level of its game. Ano nangyari? Hindi pa rin sila nagbago.

      Walang nag-invest na para mapaganda ang market. Hanggang ngayon, iisa pa rin ang CR sa dulo ng market at pay CR pa.

      Traffic pa rin, madumi pa rin, meron pa ring pick pockets at mangga-gantso.

      Iyong lalakaran mo, hindi mo alam kung simento o libag o dura o whatever.

      Diba?

    1. Maybe feelings needed to be hurt.

      As far as I know, GRP focuses less on emotions and focuses more on REASON. It doesn’t go ride the waves of the emotional majority and gives an alternative view, so no single view remains dominant. “We beg to differ,” as the subtitle says.

      Now with Sting out of SM, I personally would have had him just cancel his Philippine tour entirely. To move him to another location (which by the way is equally environmentally dubious as its bayside rival) actually presents no improvement at all.

      1. I agree he should have canceled the tour altogether. But there are some Pinoy Pride being emphasized by some in the group, most especially the lawyer who wrote the letter.

  7. – the judge’s decision on the sm case is coming out soon, let’s wait for it. Both sides were given time to present their evidences on their claims.
    – as to the Sting issue, i think Sting is a capitalist, no different from Henry Sy, theyre businessmen making loads of money out of all of us. I challenge Sting to put out the concert for free, panindigan na niya pagiging humanitarian niya hehehe….. The concert is anti-poor, all of you must admit
    – CORRUPTION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THE PROBLEMS IN BAGUIO. AS LONG AS THESE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE REIGNING OVER US , BAGUIO WILL CONTINUE TO DILAPIDATE FROM DEVELOPMENT! THEIR 20 YEARS SHOULD BE ENOUGH ALREADY!
    BAGUIO GISING!!!!

  8. Good afternoon everyone! I just want to share my opinion. PS 182 is a collection of legitimate environmentalists,blatant political opportunists, nice-minded baguio community leaders, expert fundraisers and nonsense socialists. I know some of them and I believe that their causes are good. I just got upset when this movement has turned political in its tone. They should disband and the real lovers of Baguio form their own groups.

    1) Atty Yangot, the leader of the group, is from Besao. My great-grandmother (Florence Lanag Camtugan) is from Payeo, Besao. Besao is now being ransacked by mines left and right. Australian mining companies had already made deals with the locals. Where is the anger? She is not even doing something to stop the mines in Besao.

    2) Property developers are to blame for the depletion of trees. Pero, where are the rallies against Megalopolis Properties Inc, Goshen Land, SLU etc.?

    3) This anti-SM movement has a central tenet – “HATRED OF THE GOOD FOR BEING THE GOOD”. In our dialect, they are a society of agum, apus, and apal (AAA – irrational greed (ex.swindling), envy and jealousy)… PS 182 is an anti-capitalist movement designed to bring down a symbol of the Philippine Free Enterprise. SM has a foundation helping thousands of children and it is bringing down the prices of goods (through competition and good/service quality improvement). The PS 182 is nothing but a bunch of sore losers (ooops, hindi ko po nilalahat). I doubt if their richer leaders even granted or gave scholarships to the poor children.

    4) Hypocricy stinks and it stinks a lot. One more… Have they accounted all the funds? May gas!!! I have relatives abroad who contributed.

  9. Oo nga, magkano na ba ang na collect ng mga PS 182 from donations to their alleged cause? The last i heard it was something like P350,000.00? The PS 182 should be transparent about their finances, a also know some 5 people who donated dollars…..

  10. Hi Paul, where can we find the original statement of Atty. Yangot that you quoted, the one containing this statement, ” … SM had to obey the court order but not after it cut down more than 40 trees in the dead of night …”

    I would be glad to find the URL of that statement for reference in my other article, which I have just expanded:

    http://tinyurl.com/7ptwkub

    1. Try Googling for Pedestrian Observer Cheryl Daytec Yangot or go look at my other posts on this topic, I think I linked back to it.

      Your post http://elson.elizaga.net/articles/sm-baguio-trees.html is spot on and it looks like you actually spent more time researching the supposed “cutting of trees”.

      Friends in Baguio say that what the protesters probably heard were branches of the trees being cut. This is actually done as part of the earth balling process and it is called ‘pruning’.

      If the ‘tree huggers’ actually studied a thing or two about ‘earth balling’ or transplanting fully grown plants, they would have found out that ‘pruning’ is part of the procedure.

      The reason behind it is that when trees and fully grown plants are earth balled, the very small roots that make up its active root system are actually reduced. These things spread deeper and over a larger area than the bigger roots.

      Pruning back the branches of the tree actually helps it to cope with a reduced root system and thereby increases its chances of survival.

      1. My article on SM Baguio trees was originally short. But it expanded as I found more anomalies. It might get bigger still. 🙂

        Thank you. I found Daytec’s letter here:

        http://tinyurl.com/btmr55a

        Yes, you are right about pruning. My grandmother and mother are gardeners. I had worked with an agriculturist in a village once. And I have transplanted seedlings myself.

        1. I found it rather odd that these people were busy harping on DENR’s lack of a procedure for earth balling. The fact is that the procedure for earth balling differs depending on the tree species, its age, condition, and location. Funny, really.

  11. Yup, our group, Open Space, used to perform at SM City Baguio… ironically, most of those performances were environmental in theme. That stopped when SM announced their expansion plan. The last performance we did was the musical “Kafagway: Sa Saliw ng mga Gangsa” as part of the tribute to Daniel Burnham called “City Beautiful?”…

    Bby the way, it was Burnham who said in the early 1900’s… ““Unless early protective measures are taken, the misdirected initiative of energetic lumbermen will soon cause the destruction of this beautiful scenery.”

    1. KM,

      The sentence you cited here is rather incomplete and I’ve taken the liberty of looking for the entire article which you will find here:

      http://www.archive.org/stream/danielhburnhama01moorgoog/danielhburnhama01moorgoog_djvu.txt

      Here is the copy that appears before the particular sentence that you lifted:

      “In addition to the above, it is suggested that large portions of all surrounding hills should be declared public property and maintained as informal parks.

      “The tops of the hills especially should be set aside as public reservations in order that their cresting of green may be carefully
      preserved.

      “A few buildings of exceptional importance are shown occupying the hill-tops. This should not be tbe general practice.

      “The placing of formal architectural silhouettes upon the summits of the surrounding hills would make a hard sky-line and go far toward destroying the charm of this beautiful landscape.

      “On the other hand, to place buildings on the sloping hillsides where they would be seen against a solid background of green foliage
      is to give them the best possible setting without mutilating their surroundings.

      “The preservation of the existing woods and other planting should be minutely looked after, not only on the eminences immediately contiguous to Baguio proper, but also for the
      surrounding mountains; and the carrying out of these precautions should be one of the first steps in the development of the proposed
      town.

      “Unless early protective measures are taken the misdirected initiative of energetic lumbermen will soon cause the destruction of this beautiful scenery.”

      NOTICE THAT BURNHAM WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BAGUIO IN ITS ENTIRETY, which wasn’t ravaged by lumbermen (though lumbermen might have been involved) but by property developers — LONG, LONG, LONG BEFORE SM BAGUIO BUILT ITS MALL.

      If at all you must find a culprit for the uglification of Baguio, SM might be just one of them.

      The thing is, why single SM out?

      Didn’t one university there kill trees too? How about other property developers in that area?

      Is it because, at one point, someone somewhere in this “save the tree” movement there is licking their chops over a hefty stack of cash?

      Isn’t Project Save 182 soliciting donations for this cause? How is the money being handled? Is it being reported to the members and supporters of the group?

      I hope this doesn’t turn out to be another fiasco such as the one that affected The Visayan Forum which was recently found to have committed irregularities with the funds given to it by USAID.

      I hope Sorros has good auditors.

      1. Their most likely reply would be: “Let’s not focus on these unimportant things. THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE TREES OF SM AND NOTHING MORE!!!”

        The same kind of reply that SM’s stupid press people tell the media.

        As I said, no difference between the two.

        1. Yun na nga Midway eh.

          You have to see the entire thing in order to figure out what’s really going wrong with Baguio.

          A lot more people have to speak up and it’s great that you are doing that.

          KM Altomonte here is, so far, great at milking the “trees issue” but not so great about the bigger issues in Benguet — of which SM and the trees are just part of.

          He’s a one song minstrel, apparently.

      2. By the way, just a head’s up, Grace Bandoy displayed today (November 21, 2012) a list of acronyms of people who attended SM Baguio’s Media Appreciation day at the Baguio Country Club. Two or three of these acronyms were senior leaders of the Save 182 Movement.

        Also, she discovered that the Save 182 Movement’s chief lawyer (who claims to be against Mayor Domogan) is actually being prepped to vote FOR him.

        Thank you Grace for revealing the hypocrisy of these so-called “environmentalists.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.