For the stallholders and members of the UP community, what was supposed to be a dialogue to heed their calls turned into a solo presentation from Vice President for Development Daniel Peckley.

They left the dialogue at Quezon Hall last Wednesday filled with discontent after the UP administration, and CBMS-RMCS, DiliMall’s third-party master leaseholder, refused to properly acknowledge their demands.

For USC councilor and UP Not for Sale convener Kristian Mendoza, what happened was far from a dialogue but rather a sermon marred by a lack of transparency and fueled by aggression.

“It was not an open dialogue. It was just an avenue for them to justify their actions. Every time na nagsasalita po kami, kina-cut off at di binibigyan ng platform. [Laging sinasabi na] ito po ang agenda, I am presiding the meeting.’ Ganito [siya] ka-aggressive,” said Mendoza.

Shopping Center stallholders complained that Peckley was more concerned with protecting the interests of the commercial tycoons under the guise of legality instead of protecting the community.

Predatory Proposals

From the current 5-percent arrangement, the administration proposed an alternative to lower the cost of rent but take 7 percent of each stall’s gross earnings. But as the stallholders expressed, this reduction is much more predatory and more damaging due to its profit-driven motive.

Should the stallholders agree with this new proposal, the UP Not for Sale Network calculates that the mall could earn up to P2,000 to P3,000 a day, a far cry from the P660 a day originally advertised by the administration.

Still, the stallholders assert that the reduction of rental costs is necessary to keep their products and services at accessible prices.

“Pwede naman kami mawala e. Peron [lahat] tayo apektado for sure. Kami, apektado, walang kabuhayan. Apektado ang community dahil unang-una, we will not get the same amount of services,” Edward Fernando, president of the UP Shopping Center Stallholders Association, said.

The disparity of the income allocation of DiliMall also subverts the administration’s claim tlhat the mall was primarily built for the benefit of the community, as stated by Mendoza. 

Should DiliMall meet the guaranteed minimum rent, CBMS-RMCS will get the lion’s share of the income. The leaseholder is expected to earn about P6 million per month—a huge contrast compared to the P1.35 million that UP expects to get.

At the heart of the stallholders’ concerns regarding their rightful place in Dilimall lies a memorandum of agreement between them and the university in 2004. There, it is stated that original tenants must be the administration’s top priority should the Shopping Center be replaced.

It is also stipulated in the memorandum that they have the first rights to stalls and a 20-percent discount on rental fees for their first five years of occupancy.

But as the stallholders expressed, the administration showed no interest in acknowledging the memorandum. When brought up, Peckley characterized the memorandum as “water under the bridge,” per Mendoza, and insisted that the new contract with CBMS-RMCS overrides the 2004 agreement with the stallholders.

Stallholders’ Sentiments

This battle for space has been a longstanding effort for the stallholders and the UP community. Ever since the old Shopping Center was razed in a fire, the small-scale entrepreneurs of UP have been situated at the old Tennis Court until the completion of a new Shopping Center.

The current setup at the old Tennis Court was only meant to be temporary, and the area will eventually be flattened to pave way for DiliMall’s parking lot. Repeated demolition attempts have also hounded the stallholders, supposedly as part of the mall’s construction.

That is why various stallholders described the administration’s efforts to make them accept their space in DiliMall as “coercion.”

Signing the CBMS-RMCS contract entails agreeing with their terms and forgoing their right to negotiate the details of their stall space, such as its size and location. CBMS-RMCS consultant Bim Sebastian reportedly intimidated stallholders to sign, which some complied with in fear of losing their only source of income, as explained by Fernando.

Aside from the memorandum, the stallholders also cited their not-yet-consumed security deposit that was paid in 2016, which they say entitles them to space in the mall. Stallholders of the old Shopping Center are still “active tenants,” Fernando reiterated.

The administration, however, shut down any legal evidence presented by the stallholders, insisting they separately direct such arguments to the Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs.

The stallholders, along with the USC and UP Not for Sale Network, expressed their willingness to bring this to court should the dialogues and negotiations remain unproductive.

”With [the stallholders’] sales, maybe they can [reach the rental fee], pero ayaw nila because they know that to keep up with that type of rent, they would have to raise their prices,” Mendoza said. “Hindi na magiging affordable yung services nila for the students, at syempre labag [ito] sa loob nila.” ●

With reports from Iñigo Pastor.