AE Remember This: The Ugong Property Issue - Score Two for PT and Zero for AE

AE…REMEMBER ME?

(HOW PRISTINE TRUTH PUT YOU IN BIG SHAME)

PART 12

Mula noong Abril 1, 2016 ay inire-repost po namin ang mga naging sagutan nina “Antonio Ebangelista” at “Pristine Truth” noong 2015 upang ipaala-ala kay AE, at sa kaniyang mga napapaniwala, at upang malaman ng madla na noon pa ay sinagot na si AE sa kaniyang mga paratang laban sa Iglesia at KUNG PAPAANO SIYA NALAGAY SA MALAKING KAHIHIYAN.

AE, REMEMBER THIS

Sa halip na sagutin ni “Antinio Ebangelista” ang pitong (7) argumento na ibinigay ni Pristine na nagpapatunay na hindi anomalya ang pagbebenta ng ilang ari-arian ay inilathala niya paisa-isa ang mga ari-ariang naibenta. Subalit, sa bawat paggawa niya nito ay nagbibigay siya ng patotoo na TAMA ang pitong argumento na ibinigay ni Pristine Truth. Una na ay ang ukol sa INC property sa Tagaytay na ang artikulo ni AE ukol dito ay nagbigay kumpirmasyon na TAMA si Pristine Truth. Ganon din ang nangyari sa artikulo ni AE ukol sa INC property sa Ugong, Pasig. Kaya, tama lang ang konklusyon ni Pristine Truth na “Score Two for Pristine Truth and Zero for Antonio Ebangelista.” Tunghayan natin kung papaano muling napahiya si AE sa isyung ito:

___________________________

SCORE TWO FOR US 
AND ZERO FOR AE

Answering the Ugong Property Issue

First posted last 22 June 2015

WE are indeed correct in saying every time they publish evidences of “prime properties” of the Church that have been sold, it always confirms that what we say is true and also proves that those opposing the Church Administration are indeed wrong. They cannot argue with facts (contra factum non habet argumentum).

Again, instead of answering the points (arguments) we given proving selling properties is not an anomaly nor proof of the existence of corruption in the Church, those opposing the Church Administration publishing one by one those INC properties that have been sold. However, in featuring this it only confirmed that we are right. Let us again enumerate our points or arguments regarding this issue:

(1) the properties being sold are those no longer needed or the Church has no longer use for it;
(2) the law states that the Church as a religious corporation “Such corporations shall HAVE THE RIGHT to purchase, hold, mortgage, or SELL real estate for its church…”;
(3) It was the decision of the Church Administration (the Executive Minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo) and not any of the members of the Sanggunian to sell those properties no longer needed by the church because it is the Church Administration who has all the legal rights to decide to such matter;
(4) the past administration also did it;
(5) It is not an anomaly but only being practical, efficient and competent to disposed properties no longer needed or we no longer has use for it;
(6) it is not against the "tuntunin" and "practices" of the Church; and
(7) it doesn't follow (non sequitur) that if the Church sold properties it means that the Church is bankrupt or in debt.

WHAT THEY CLAIM AND WHAT

THEY HAVE TO PROVE

In their article entitled “PROPERTY SOLD TO ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION” published last June 15, 2015, this is what they said:

“And then in all of my researches surfaced a slew of properties being sold and were already sold not because they are not being used, not because there is no use for them, not because they are worried about the property tax, not because they are burdened by the upkeep and maintenance but because they just needed to dispose as much property as they can for whatever buck they can squeeze out of it. There are more acquired properties now that generates unnecessary upkeep and maintenance expenses that they should be more worried about, but that would be in another article, you wouldn’t believe how much the church is spending for unnecessary expenses for unnecessary equipment/properties/personnel and we all know where they will be getting the money to cover all of those expenses. So for them to say that the reason for selling INC properties now is because of expenses in taxes, personnel and maintenance and that there is no use for them anymore, well… let’s just say that even a child won’t buy their lame excuses and double standards.”

                          

Those opposing the Church Administration claim that this “property” was sold because the Church is in great debt so “they just needed to dispose as much property as they can for whatever buck they can squeeze out of it.” Thus, they claim that this property was sold “not because they are not being used, not because there is no use for them, not because they are worried about the property tax, not because they are burdened by the upkeep and maintenance.” So, in saying that one of the reasons why the Church disposed these properties because the Church has no longer use for them and to avoid unnecessary expenses, yhey claim that “…let’s just say that even a child won’t buy their lame excuses and double standards.”

Thus, those opposing the Church Administration in order to prove they are right that the Church sold these properties “they just needed to dispose as much property as they can for whatever buck they can squeeze out of it” they need to prove that these properties are still still being used or needed by the Church, and we need not be worried about the property tax, and the upkeep and maintenance of these properties. Failure in proving so means that those opposing the Church administration are wrong and just making lies to make their readers believe that there is something wrong with the Church today.

WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG?

About the “Tagaytay Property”

In their past article which they featured the “INC property in Tagaytay”, they failed to prove that this property is still being used or needed by the Church. Actually, no locale or district is using it, even the Executive Minister is no longer using it. Those opposing the Church Administration themselves confirmed that this Tagaytay property is no longer needed or used by the Church:

“Let’s see if you can recognize this once-a-tranquil-haven for Ka Eraño G. Manalo and his whole Family, NOW A GHOST TOWN OF USELESS ABANDONMENT.”

Thus, score ONE for us, and Zero for those opposing

the Church administration.

About the “Ugong Property”

The Real Reason for purchasing this “Ugong property.” This Church’s property in Ugong, Pasig was the former location of the Church’s radio transmitter tower. They did not mentioned that! Why? Let us see why:

In 1965, when the Church established her first AM Radio Station, DZEM, we acquired that property in Ugong for the purpose of being the location of the our Radio transmitter tower (not for housing project).  Thus, from 1965 to 1995, the Church’s radio transmitter tower was located in this property in Ugong. If this is the real case, thus this statement of Antonio Ebangelista is a BIG LIE:

“Such is the case of the parcel of land from the locale of Ugong WHERE THE INC HOUSING USED TO BE.

“IT GOES WAY WAY BACK AND A LOT OF BRETHREN WHO USED TO LIVE IN THE HOUSES PROVIDED BY THE CHURCH ADMINISTRATION can attest that it was such a great blessing to be cared for by the Church.”

In 1995, the radio transmitter tower was transferred to Ubando, Bulacan. Why? Because of the reason that radio transmitter is more efficient if surrounded by waters. Thus, the Church acquired a property in Ubando, Bulacan. Many fishponds can be found in this area. We can also find in this area the radio transmitter tower of DZBB (AM radio of GMA 7), DZMM (AM radio of ABS-CBN 2), the very popular DZRH, and others. Thus, the transmitter tower for the Church’s two AM radio stations (DZEM and DZEC) was transferred from Ugong to Ubando, Bulacan.

However, do you know that there was a problem ocured during the construction of the radio transmitter tower in Ubando in 1995? This project (the construction of the radio transmitter in Ubando) was administered by “those behind Antonio Ebanghelista.” This project did not pass through the usual procedure of the Church (the usual needed paper works undergone by all Church’s project) because “those behind Antonio Ebanghelsita” have “blanket authorities” (one they lost when Brother Eduardo V. Manalo became the Executive Minister, so one of their grudges against the present Church Administration).

Thus, this property in Ugong was purchased in 1965 for the purpose of being the location of DZEM’s radio transmitter tower. However, the transmitter tower was trasffered to Ubando, Bulacan in 1995.

Ugong Locale has it own lot where their House of Worship located. Does locale of Ugong needed this property (which was the former location of DZEM’s radio transmitter tower) to built their House of Worship? The locale congregation of Ugong already has it’s own lot where their large concrete and permanent House of Worship is now built. Antonio Ebangelista himself included in his article a picture of Ugong’s House of Worship. Thus, the locale of Ugong doesn’t need it.

How about CEM’s plan of establishing an extension in that property? Indeed there was a proposal that CEM Rizal extension be transferred from Taytay to this property in Ugong. But, this “plan” did not materialized. Why? There was a time when the Church Administration (Ka Erdy) decided to close all the extensions including the one in the Ecclesiastical District of Rizal. Thus, no need to established an extension in this property in Ugong.

When CEM extensions were re-established during the tune of Brother Eduardo V. Manalo, the current Executive Minister, but Metro Manila area was also reorganized into “five” (now “six”) ecclesiastical districts. Thus, Marikina and Pasig became the Ecclesiastical District of Metro Manila East (Ugong locale is under it’s jurisdiction), while the district office of Rizal went back to Taytay which made more impossible for CEM Rizal Extension to establish a campus in the Ugong property. Thus, CEM Rizal Extension renovated the old CEM Rizal Extension campus in Taytay. How about Metro Manila East? As we all know, as of this date, all students in all districts in Metro Manila attend classes in CEM Main campus. Thus, CEM doesn’t need it.

How about the plan of transferring the “district office” in Ugong? First of all, which “district” who made the plan of trannsfering the “district office” in Ugong? The Ecclesiastical District of Rizal. Because of the proposal that CEM Rizal Extension be transferred to Ugong, the District of Rizal also proposed to transfer the district office in Ugong. It’s a “common policy” that CEM extension must be near the district office. But this plan was abandoned when the Church Administration decided to close all extensions. Now Rizal’s district office is back in Taytay. The district office of Metro Manila East at first was located in Pasig Locale because this was the former home of the district office of Rizal, and now permanently located at Bagong Ilog, Pasig. Rizal went back to Taytay. Thus, no district needs the Ugong property.

INC Housing located in this Ugong property? To make it more “dramatic,” those opposing the Church Administration used the word “INC Housing” and even claim that this “INC Housing” goes way, way back:

“Such is the case of the parcel of land from the locale of Ugong WHERE THE INC HOUSING USED TO BE.

“IT GOES WAY WAY BACK AND A LOT OF BRETHREN WHO USED TO LIVE IN THE HOUSES PROVIDED BY THE CHURCH ADMINISTRATION can attest that it was such a great blessing to be cared for by the Church.”

In doing so, they make it appear that there is an INC Housing project here like in Central, Tagumpay and Dasmarinas, Cavite. To make it more “dramatic,” those opposing the Church Administration claim the following:

“But what happened? Why were the brethren dispersed and relocated to other far housing projects, as far as Montalban, Rizal? What happened?”

Antonio Ebangelista used the word “dispersed” to paint an “evil picture” against the Church Administration (as if that they were forced to abandon the place and a “demolition” occurred). But, in the same “sentence,” Ebangelista contradicted himself. He said, “Why were the brethren DISPERSED and RELOCATED.” And to further make an “evil picture” of the Church Administration, he further claimed “(the brethren were) relocated to other FAR housing projects AS FAR AS Montalban, Rizal”. Ebangelista is only making an “evil picture” of the Church Administration as oppressing the brethren who formerly lived in that property. Is this really the case?

First, those in Ugong was not a housing project like in Central, Tagumpay and Dasmarinas. That is not the case. As we already mentioned, Ugong property was not for housing project but originally the location of the radio transmitter tower. When the radio transmitter was transferred to Ubando, Bulacan, many were allowed to TEMPORARILY live there. Those brethren who lived there are the witnesses that the Church Administration allowed them to live there only temporarily. This they all know and understand. So, the situation in Ugong is not like in Central, Tagumpay and Dasmarinas.

Second, “Montalban” in Rizal is not a “very remote” area. When Ebangelista said “as far as Montalban” he is suggesting that this is a very remote area. Note his trickery. He used the word “Montalban” to suggest that this is a very remote area. However, “Montalban” is no longer the name of that town, but “Rodriguez,” a town adjacent to Quezon City. The Church even has a housing project in that town, the TAGUMPAY housing project which many living there work in Central office. Today, if you have your own vehicle, it’s a 20 minute drive to Central, and if you commute, it will take about 30 minutes to arrive at Litex or Commonwealth Avenue.

Third,  the house and lot given to them in Rodriguez, Rizal are their OWN. Helping them to have their own house and lot in a town adjacent to Quezon City and about 30 minutes travel to Litex or Commonwealth avenue, is that an act of oppression?

Those opposing the Church Administration also failed to explain why we should not worry about the property taxes for this prime property. Should we really not worry on the expenses for the taxes of this property in Ugong? He himself describe this property as:

“Wait a minute… this can’t possibly be right… Why would the Sanggunian approve the sale of a COMPLETELY USABLE, PRIME LOT, STRATEGICALLY LOCATED IN ONE OF THE HIGH-VALUED LOCATIONS IN THE METRO?”

Ugong property as Antonio Ebangelista describe it as “completely usable, prime lot, strategically located in one of the HIGH-VALUED locations in the Metro," and we should not worry about it’s property tax? He is not worrying because for him there is the abuloy where we get for the huge expenses in maintaining this property.

Dito kitang-kita ang tunay mong kulay, G. Antonio Ebangelista! Ang sinasabi mong pagmamalasakit sa Iglesia ay isang pagkukunwari lamang. Sinasabi mo rin naman na ang mga kapatid na ito ay halos wala nang makain, hirap lang sa buhay, minsan ay naglalakad na lamang upang ang ipapamasahe patungo sa kapilya ay ipanghahandog na lamang, subalit para sa iyo maling ipagbili ang isang “property” na hindi naman ginagamit ng isang lokal, isang departamento, ng isang distrito, ng Iglesia sa kabuuan, at ginagastuhan pa ng malaki ang pag-maintain dito alang-alang lamang sa “ala-ala”? Para sa iyo ay kahit gumastos ng malaki na kukunin sa abuloy ng mga kapatid basta lang mapanatili ang isang property na hindi naman ginagamit ng isang lokal, departamento, distrito, o ng Iglesia sa kanuuan? Hindi ba’t maliwanag na lumalabas na ang ipinaglalaban mo G. Antonio Ebangelista ay HINDI ang kapakanan ng Iglesia, kundi ang ipinaglalaban mo ay ang kapanakanan ng mga taong nasa likod mo?

This property was sold to eradicate Ka Erdy’d memory?

You accused the STF which you say is headed by Brother Jojo De Guzman as the culprit behind the selling of the property for the purpose of eradicating the memory of Brother Erano G. Manalo? However, you failed to show proofs but only “opinions” and being "judgmental.” Does STF rallying for the eradication of Brother Erano G. Manalo’s memory?

(1) STF is behind the making and publishing of the EGM Coffee Table Book.

(2) STF is behind the annual exhibit in CEM’ anniversary showcasing the history of the Church including the history and legacy of Brother Erano G. Manalo.

(3) STF is always behind the articles in PASUGO featuring the history and legacy of Brother Erano G. Manalo.

And if it is true that there is a move today inside the Church to eradicate the memory of Brother Erano G. Manalo, why Ka Erdy’s picture still hanging in all Locale’s receiving room or pastor’s office? Why we can find a large section of the Museum housing Ka Erdy’s memorabilia? Why the discussion of the life of Brother Erano G. Manalo is still a part of CEM’s curriculum? Why we still used the Pandoktrina authored by Ka Erdy himself? Why currently, CEM finishing a five volume book of Ka Erdy’s biography? And have you forgot that the current Executive Minister is the first-born son of Ka Erdy?

We have an article fully discussing the STF and the allegation that there is a move in eradicating Ka Erdy’s memory.

Conclusion

Ugong property’s original purpose was to be the location for the radio transmitter tower of the Church’ AM radio stations. From 1965 to 1995, the transmitter tower was located in this property, but it was transferred to Ubando, Bulacan in 1995. The Ugong locale already has it’s own lot and permanent House of Worship. CEM Rizal Extension's plan of establishing a campus and Rizal district’s plan to transfer the district office in this property in Ugong did not materialize because Ugong is no longer under Rizal’s jurisdiction, and CEM Rizal Extension and Rizal’s district office went back to Taytay from Pasig. Metro Manila East has already a new district office in Bagong Ilog, Pasig and their students are attending classes at CEM Main Capus in Quezon City. Also, as Antonio Ebangelista himself described this property, it is a  “completely usable, prime lot, strategically located in one of the HIGH-VALUED locations in the Metro,” So why we should not be worried about it’s property tax?

Thus, score TWO for us, and Zero for those opposing

the Church administration.

PRISTINE TRUTH