DUMAGUETE CITY — The question before Dumaguete is now simple.
If the National Museum of the Philippines and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts already raised serious concerns over a proposed convention center near the Dumaguete Bell Tower, should the same concerns not apply to a proposed ₱1.9-billion public market planned in the same sensitive heritage area?
The name of the project may have changed.
The impact may not.
What was once discussed as a convention center is now being presented as a massive public market project. But if the structure will still rise near the Dumaguete Belfry, if it will still dominate the same view corridor, and if it will still affect the setting of one of the city’s most important heritage landmarks, then the same compliance questions remain.
A project cannot avoid heritage scrutiny simply by being called a “merkado.”
In a memorandum dated October 28, 2025, the National Museum addressed the proposed convention center near the Dumaguete Bell Tower. The memo stated that the National Museum may express objection to the proposed construction because the development project would negatively impact the authenticity in design and setting of the built heritage property.
That statement matters.
It means the issue was never only about the use of the building. The issue was the scale, location, design, and effect of the structure on the Bell Tower and its historic surroundings.
The National Museum also said a Heritage Impact Assessment should be required to identify possible negative effects on the built heritage property and to recommend ways to avoid or reduce those impacts.
It went further.
The memo urged stronger coordination with other cultural agencies and the DILG to persuade the Dumaguete LGU to revisit its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, with due consideration for an appropriate buffer zone for the built heritage precinct of Dumaguete, including the Bell Tower.
Even more important, the memo’s footnote referred to a video clip regarding the Dumaguete Market and related development near the Dumaguete Bell Tower. That detail should not be ignored. It shows that the concern was already tied not only to the convention center label, but to the broader development of the market area beside the heritage landmark.
The NCCA later issued its own letter dated March 26, 2026 to Mayor Manuel T. Sagarbarria. In that letter, the NCCA required the city to submit key documents before any activity related to the proposed construction could proceed.
These included an Archaeological Impact Assessment, a Heritage Impact Assessment, as-built or as-found plans, development plans, scope of works, construction methodology, and photo documentation of the site condition.
The NCCA also noted that the belfry is a declared important cultural property and that it has a designated security or buffer zone extending five meters from its visible perimeter. It also recognized that Dumaguete is identified as an archaeological site and an environmentally critical area.
Taken together, the National Museum memo and the NCCA letter point to one conclusion:
Any massive construction near the Dumaguete Belfry must undergo serious heritage, archaeological and environmental review.
That standard should apply whether the project is called a convention center, a mall-type market, or a public market.
The proposed ₱1.9-billion market is not a small neighborhood structure. It is being presented as a major, multi-level development in an area already flagged for heritage sensitivity. If built near the Bell Tower, it could permanently change how Dumaguete’s most recognizable historic landmark is seen, experienced, and protected.
This is why the National Museum and the NCCA must be formally informed of the present market proposal, if they have not been informed already.
They must be given the actual plans, elevations, renderings, site location, project scale, construction methodology, and visual impact perspective. They must be asked directly whether the same requirements they raised for the proposed convention center also apply to the proposed ₱1.9-billion market.
The city government must also show written proof of compliance before final approval, borrowing, bidding, demolition, or construction moves forward.
This is not anti-development.
This is responsible development.
Dumaguete can modernize its public market without sacrificing the historic character of the Bell Tower. It can build for vendors, consumers, and future generations without ignoring the very agencies tasked to protect the country’s cultural heritage.
The issue is not whether Dumaguete needs a better market.
It does.
The issue is whether a massive ₱1.9-billion structure should be allowed to rise beside the Belfry without first answering the same heritage warnings already raised by the National Museum and the NCCA.
From convention center to market, the name may have changed.
But if the impact on the Dumaguete Belfry remains the same, then the same heritage review must follow.
Featured illustration: illustrative perspective for heritage impact review only — showing the possible visual and heritage impact of the proposed ₱1.9-billion Dumaguete public market near the Dumaguete Belfry.
