Torre de Manila Case
Short Description
timeline and arguments...
Description
TORRE DE MANILA CASE Torre de Manila Case On set interviewee: Carlo – Torre de Manila (DMCI) Counsel Angelo – City Attorney of Manila as represented by Sol Gen Metha – Knights of Rizal/ History preservation organization/ NCCA/ NHCP Video 1: Patrick – Torre de Manila (DMCI) official statement/ PR Speaker Rebecca’s opening salvo on the case: The 49-story residential project, dubbed as the “national photobomber” by critics, is the subject of a petition filed last September 2014 by the Knights of Rizal. ARGUMENTS: Based on the Oral arguments in the SC Law Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81191 SC Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza said that 4 layers of protection were ignored when DMCI Homes, the condominium's developer, was given the permits to build the highrise residential project: 1. Buildings under the university cluster, where the Torre de Manila stands, impose a maximum floorarea ratio of 4. Torre de Manila's building plans show that it will have a floorarea ratio of 7.79. 2. Section 22 of the ordinance prescribes building regulations in histocultural preservation zones. 3. Section 23 states that
Knights of Rizal The group wants to have the building demolished because it mars the sightline of the historic Rizal Monument and because it allegedly violated zoning laws in the city of Manila.
City of Manila June 19, 2012 it granted DMCI zoning permit for Torre de Manila, allowing variance (exemption) for 49-story construction. *note: allowing only no resolution. -no counter agruments per layers of protection as argued by SC Justice Jardeleza-
DMCI Torre de Manila’s developer, DMCI Homes, has denied this, saying that the building sits on private property away from the protected heritage area and was given clearances by city officials. DMCI also started pre selling parts of the property in October 2012 and started construction in November 2012.
1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/61644659/Ordinance-8119-Zoning-Ordinance-asPublished#scribd
the floorarea ratio requirement should be complied with "in all instances" and that the validity of this requirement will only be superseded by regulations specified for the zone. 4. Section 47 requires a heritage impact statement to be submitted to the city planning and development office. Section 63 of the Manila Zoning Ordinance Noting that in cases of variances and exceptions, developers should refer to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals (MZBAA) and the Committee on Housing, Urban Development and resettlements “prior to conducting any business activity or construction on their property/land.”
“VARIANCE” was granted to DMCI 2 years after the permit was issued.
Justice Marvic Leonen also questioned the zoning permit issued to DMCI, asking their lawyer Victor Lazatin how they could have started construction of Torre de Manila even without a resolution from the city council or the MZBAA. Lazatin said there was no reason for DMCI to go to MZBAA since the variance for the construction of the condominium was already approved by the city planning and development officer. DMCI lawyer Roberto Dio admitted that they could not see “any provision authorizing the city of Manila to suspend the ordinance.” He adds that the company only “relied on the legal opinion of the city planning and development officer” at the time.
Republic Act 646 to propagate Rizal's teachings, life and works. Section 14, 15, and 16, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution.
Calling it a "possible historic first," the Order of the Knights of Rizal also wants the high court to grant it a "writ of pamana" (heritage) or a "writ of kasaysayan" (history) as a legal remedy for the protection of a citizen's right to "all the country's artistic and historic wealth which constitutes treasure of the nation” as provided in the 1987 Constitution.
no counter agruments
The Rizal monument was only declared National Monument on April 13, 2013 and it is also 800 meters behind Rizal.
no counter agruments
Basing solely their theory on the approved permit and variance exemption grant.
The group said allowing the Torre de Manila to be completed would be considered the "worst precedent imaginable... to devalue historical landmarks."
National Historical Commission of the Philippines' "Guidelines on Monuments Honoring National heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and Other Personages"
Thus, DMCI Homes acted in bad faith and violated Manila's zoning ordinance and other laws as well as existing guidelines on monuments. Historic monuments should assert a visual "dominance" over the surroundings. The guidelines state that "vista points" and "visual corridors" to monuments must be kept "clear for unobstructed viewing and appreciation and photographic
2 http://www.rappler.com/nation/49236-manila-approves-torre-de-manila
BUT, there are conditions imposed by MZBAA and Manila city council to redesign the building and be an “art deco” 2 DMCI’s analogy for the
opportunities."
Venice Charter
Under the agreement, the Philippines agreed not to allow any new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and color of a monument.
“visual corridors” are the following:3 Natl Monument – Indonesia Natl Monument Dam Square – Netherlands Angel of Independent – Mexico Monument to the People’s Heroes – China Heroes of Iquique Chile no counter agruments
no counter agruments Basing solely their theory on the approved permit and variance exemption grant.
HISTORY/TIMELINE4: 2012
DMCI Homes begins construction of Torre de Manila, during the time of former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim. In June Manila city's planning and development officer, Resty Rebong, approved the zoning permit for Torre de Manila, allowing variance (exemption) for 49-story construction. the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) said Torre de Manila violated the agency’s guidelines on monuments honoring national heroes. 6 months later, the NHCP reversed its stance. In July Melvin Balagot granted DMCI a building permit. City councilor DJ Bagatsing drafted a resolution to suspend this building permit; the resolution was approved by the council. In a letter dated November 6, 2012, NHCP chair Maria Serena Diokno told DMCI that as Torre de Manila sits “outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park and well to the rear of the Rizal National Monument…it cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the said National Monument.” But Diokno also recommended that an ordinance be enacted designating a buffer zone around Rizal Park to prevent a repeat of a similar “dilemma.”
2013 In November, the Manila city council suspended the building permit for Torre de Manila to allow for a roundtable discussion between DMCI and groups opposing the project. This happened during the term of current Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada.
3https://www.facebook.com/torredemanilabydmci/photos/ms.c.eJw9ysENACAIA8CNDJRa7P6L~ _SD6vVyKULgEpcteOUAaR7H7Q87ghxrAAw00LtcuERc~-.bps.a.1642609242619411.107374183 0.1476695669210770/1642609432619392/?type=3&theater 4 http://www.rappler.com/nation/104667-torre-de-manila-dmci-supreme-court-timeline
2014 On January 24, the Manila zoning board approved the construction of Torre de Manila, after DMCI appealed for an exemption from zoning laws. The real estate developer had appealed to Mayor Estrada, citing the permits it obtained from city officials under the previous administration. In August, the Senate conducted an inquiry into the issue. Senator Pia Cayetano questioned DMCI on its assumptions of “good faith” in constructing the high-rise despite knowing the zoning limitations in the area. DMCI explained that it considered the permits obtained from the city government good enough to proceed with construction. On September 12, the Knights of Rizal – a group created in honor of the national hero – filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking the demolition of the condominium. The group said the high-rise building threatens to ruin the "visual dominance" of the monument of the national hero. The petitioner also said the building qualifies as a "nuisance", and claimed that DMCI built the building in bad faith. Named respondents in the petition were DMCI, the city of Manila, and government respondents National Museum, National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) represents the government respondents. 2015 In January, the NCCA issued a cease and desist order (CDO) against Torre de Manila because it “destroys or significantly alters” the view of the Rizal Monument. The NCCA cited the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, saying that the Rizal National Monument, Rizal Fountain, Rizal Park, and the Execution Site are “cultural property characterized as built heritage.” DMCI, however, said only the Supreme Court can stop construction. In June, the SC issued a temporary restraining order stopping the construction of Torre de Manila. It also set dates for oral arguments on the petition filed by the Knights of Rizal. Also in June, Estrada openly blamed Lim for signing the permits for the controversial high-rise. Lim earlier accused Estrada of extorting money from DMCI for building permits. DMCI’s exemption from zoning laws, however, was approved in 2014, under Estrada's term. On July 21, the High Court began hearing oral arguments on the Torre de Manila petition. In July, the Solicitor General changed his stand on the case, reversing his earlier position that there was no legal basis for the NHCP to stop the construction of the building because Torre sits on private property “way beyond the protected buffer zone of the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park.” Under the law, the NHCP can issue a CDO when the “physical integrity” of a cultural artifact is threatened. Solicitor General Florin Hilbay’s new position was that Torre de Manila is illegal and should be removed because it violates constitutional provisions on the preservation of cultural artifacts. He argued that in the case of the Rizal Monument, its “physical integrity” necessarily includes its sightline. The NHCP slammed Hilbay for reversing his position. In August, the Solicitor General drops the NHCP as its client owing to differences in opinion on the case. On September 1, the Court held the 6th and last hearing on the Torre de Manila petition
View more...
Comments
