The Banat-i Hill Cultural Hub in Tagbilaran City was an ambitious project halted by environmental issues and political misunderstanding among stakeholders. After public opposition, the plan was redesigned. The current proposal is to adapt the existing structure into an environmentally-conscious Public Viewing and Cultural Deck, focusing on conservation and public access. (Contributed photo)
By DAVE SUAN ALBARADO
Despite rigorous environmental and feasibility studies, comprehensive multi-agency approvals and P135 million already invested in foundation work, the Regional Cultural Hub project atop Banat-i Hill faces an uncertain future as city and provincial officials have reversed their support, leaving stakeholders questioning the consistency and commitment of government leadership to economic development.
The project, conceptualized as a transformative economic engine for Bohol’s emerging creative industry, is seen as a carefully vetted project that was approved through established governance channels by multiple national and local agencies.
Yet political reversals have thrown the development into limbo, igniting issues about the province’s ability to follow through on infrastructure commitments and maintain consistent policy frameworks over time.
Proponents of the Regional Cultural Hub argue the project addresses critical gaps in Bohol’s infrastructure and represents a strategic investment in the province’s economic future.
The creative industry is widely recognized as an emerging market with revenue-generating potential, capable of attracting both international tourists and providing sustainable employment for local artists, craftspeople and cultural workers.
Bohol currently lacks adequate exhibition spaces where artists can display their work and reach broader audiences.
The cultural hub was designed to fill this gap, providing world-class facilities for showcasing local talent on an international stage while positioning Bohol as a regional cultural destination.
“The creative industry is emerging and can draw tons of money for the people,” noted Lila Mayor Atty. Jed Piollo in defense of the project. “We need to cultivate the creativity of the people of Bohol.”
The facility was also envisioned to provide comprehensive training and educational programs for creative and cultural workers, helping develop the province’s workforce in a high-growth sector.
Beyond economic benefits, the cultural hub promised to enhance Bohol’s tourism profile and cultural reputation regionally and internationally.
The project underwent a thorough approval process involving multiple national and local government agencies, suggesting serious institutional backing for the development.
The concept was proposed jointly by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the National Economic and Development Authority and the Bohol Arts and Heritage Council during former Gov. Edgar M. Chatto’s administration.
Implementation commenced during former Gov. Arthur Yap’s term in coordination with the Department of Public Works and Highways.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate and environmental clearances, indicating that environmental impact assessments concluded the project’s risks were manageable.
The city government, through the Sangguniang Panlungsod, provided formal support following a public hearing that specifically addressed environmental concerns raised by Tagbilaran Baywatch.
The council unanimously passed a resolution backing the project after that inquiry hearing, demonstrating broad official consensus that the project had merit.
Building permits and clearances were issued only for the initial phase of construction, following proper procedures.
The groundbreaking ceremony was attended by provincial and city officials, with Regional Development Council Chairman Kenneth Kobonpue serving as guest of honor.
A critical issue emerging from the political reversals involves what critics describe as a fundamental dismantling of the project concept.
City Mayor Jane Censor Yap’s revised proposal would reduce the development to a viewing deck, walking space and theater — a drastically different facility from the originally envisioned Regional Cultural Hub.
This radical redesign spawns questions about project integrity and government accountability.
The Regional Cultural Hub was conceived as a comprehensive cultural and creative center designed to support artists, provide exhibition spaces, offer training programs and serve as a regional cultural destination.
An observation deck, walking space and theater represent fundamentally different functions and objectives.
Project proponents and government agencies that championed the initiative — including the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the Bohol Arts and Heritage Council, the National Economic and Development Authority and the Department of Public Works and Highways — have not issued public statements explaining this dramatic transformation or clarifying whether the downsized facility would accomplish the original project objectives.
“The Regional Cultural Hub is a totally different facility than an open observation deck, an open space and a theater,” noted critics familiar with the original concept. “Comments from NCCA, BAHC and proponents, in the spirit of transparency, should explain to the Boholano stakeholders what has changed and why.”
The absence of official explanation from these agencies about the scope reduction and its implications represents a governance failure that undermines public trust in institutional decision-making processes.
Project proponents noted that feasibility studies and detailed infrastructure and operational plans were completed before the project moved to implementation, suggesting the concept was thoroughly vetted before public resources were committed.
Despite the project’s legitimate approvals and scaled modifications, opposition has emerged, throwing valid issues about governance consistency and environmental protection.
Tagbilaran Baywatch, an environmental watchdog organization, has proposed that Banat-i Hill be declared a protected geological site, which would effectively halt the project.
The group has decried about potential flooding and geological impacts, noting incidents in Cebu province where infrastructure development led to catastrophic flooding.
Project opponents argue that the city’s environmental governance record demonstrates inconsistency and reactive rather than proactive planning.
While city officials now champion environmental protection of Banat-i Hill, various infrastructure developments were previously permitted on the site before preservation became a stated priority.
The city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan remains incomplete despite years of planning, and the citywide Drainage Masterplan was only recently announced as nearing approval despite documented flooding issues in multiple areas.
Environmental advocates point to these gaps as evidence that environmental protection has not been systematically integrated into city planning.
Critics also cite what they characterize as double-faced environmental policies.
The city previously approved a reclamation project in Tagbilaran Bay that was halted only after intense public opposition from constituents and church leaders.
The city also issued permits for cutting century-old acacia trees to accommodate a gas station, only proposing tree-protection ordinances as damage control after public outcry.
These inconsistencies, opponents argue, suggest the city cannot be trusted to properly manage environmental protection on Banat-i Hill, despite issuing clearances.
A major issue for project supporters involves the dramatic political reversals that have undermined institutional stability.
City Mayor Yap announced opposition to the project following a meeting with Bohol Gov. Aris Aumentado, departing from the city council’s previous unanimous support.
First District Rep. John Geesnell “Baba” Yap, who attended the groundbreaking ceremony as mayor, claimed he did not request additional funding for the project and that it is not among his current priorities — a statement that appears to distance himself from a project he publicly supported through ceremonial participation.
Perhaps most troubling for project proponents is what former observers have characterized as institutional silence from the project’s principal proponents.
The NCCA and BAHC, which championed the concept through the approval process, have not issued official public statements addressing the controversy or clarifying the project’s revised scope and objectives.
“Media and social media may demand explanations from PGBH through BAHC. There is deafening silence on their part being the proponents,” sources said. “Stakeholders deserve to know in the spirit of transparency and accountability.”
Architect Niño Guidaben, responding to questions about the mayor’s design change announcements, described the situation as a “leadership call,” suggesting project advocates have presented their case repeatedly to officials without successful persuasion.
“We have presented everything again and again to them. It’s up to them,” Guidaben said.
Beyond political uncertainty, the project’s completion faces other ordeals.
The Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority, the implementing agency, has indicated constraints in completing the development according to environmental watchdog Tagbilaran Baywatch.
However, observers note that the funding issue should not be viewed as a primary issue.
Many government and non-government infrastructure projects across the country are completed on a phased basis over multiple years, with sequential funding allocations matching construction phases. This approach is standard practice in major infrastructure development.
“The issue is not on funding requirement as many government and non-government infrastructure are completed by phase,” noted policy observers. “It is about consistency in policy setting over more than a decade to avoid waste of resources through proactive, not reactive planning, especially on matters concerning the environment and sustainable development.”
The critical concern is whether government agencies maintain consistent policy direction and environmental frameworks across multiple administrations, ensuring that infrastructure investments align with long-term provincial development strategies rather than shifting based on political cycles and reactive responses to public pressure.
Project proponents have said that the current impasse reflects a straightforward decision for present leaders: whether to proceed with the project or halt it entirely.
They stressed this is not a matter of assigning blame to previous administrations but rather a clear choice for current officials.
“The issue now is: GO or NO GO. It’s for the present leaders to decide, not the previous administrations,” sources said.
However, proponents have called for PGBH and BAHC to hold another public discussion on the issue, insisting that stakeholders deserve clarity from those who championed the project.
“Why did they touch Banat-i Hill if they are not ready to explain it?” proponents asked, criticizing what they characterized as evasiveness from project proponents.
City Vice Mayor Adam Jala participated in the inquiry process that led to the council’s resolution supporting the project, underscoring the official consensus that existed when the decision was made.
The city government is pursuing measures to declare Banat-i Hill and Eli Hill as protected areas through a provincial ordinance and House Bill, while working to update its Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
These protective measures, while addressing environmental issues, effectively contradict the previous institutional support for the cultural hub.
Mayor Yap has clarified that construction permits were issued only for the initial phase, not the entire project, providing technical grounds for the reversal.
Yet this distinction was not cited when permits were originally granted and the groundbreaking ceremony was held.
The stalled project now awaits decisive action from provincial officials and cultural authorities about whether modifications to the original concept will move forward or whether the project will be abandoned entirely.
What remains certain is that the P135 million already invested in foundation work, and the institutional consensus that existed at approval, have been undermined by political reversals and lack of clarity from project proponents.
For Bohol’s creative economy and the local artists and cultural workers who viewed the facility as a transformative opportunity, the project’s uncertain status is seen as a missed chance to invest in sustainable economic development during a critical moment when the creative industries sector is gaining global recognition and market value.