Gov’t to DMCI: Change design or demolish Torre de Manila

DMCI Homes should either change the design or demolish part of the Torre de Manila that destroys the sightline of the Rizal Monument at the Luneta Park in Manila.

In a 46-page memorandum submitted to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing respondents National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and the National Museum, said these were the only options available to the DMCI.

Insisting the construction of the condominium was illegal, the OSG also said the high tribunal should order the local government of Manila, through a mandamus, to ensure that the condominium is either reconstructed or demolished.

"The Honorable Court may require the City Mayor of Manila: (1) to require DMCI to make necessary changes in the construction of the Torre de Manila, or (2) to demolish the same to the extent that it impairs the sightline of the Rizal Monument," read the memorandum.

The OSG stressed that the mayor of Manila has the duty under Section 455 (b) (3) (vi) of the Local Government Code to order the DMCI to make changes or demolish the condominium.

Section 455 (b) (2) (ii) of the Local Government Code additionally provides that the City Mayor has the duty to “[e]nforce all laws and ordinances relative to the governance of the city,” and to “[i]ssue such executive orders for the faithful and appropriate enforcement and execution of laws and ordinances," said the OSG.

At the same time, the OSG said the NCCA should be ordered to oversee the demolition of Torre de Manila.

Likewise, the commission should be ordered to "prescribe policies for its conservation and preservation in coordination with other national cultural agencies."

No modification

At a media conference in Manila in the middle of the year, DMCI thumbed down suggestions to modify the Torre De Manila structure.

DMCI lawyer Roberto Dio said in June that there were no formal negotiations between the property developer and any party for "remedial measures" to address issues on the condominium's aesthetics or vista lines in relation to the Rizal monument.

If ever there would be proposals, however, the lawyer said the company would probably not be open to any of them, saying the firm cannot please everybody.

"If we try to ameliorate the situation by addressing the concerns of one party, we'll encounter the concerns of other parties. 'Yan ang situation natin," said Dio.

"Assuming that we address the concerns of the Knights of Rizal, pumayag sila na i-change ang facade, what other entity will file a case before another court? Wala nang katapusan yan kung nag-reklamo 'yan," he added.

The Knights of Rizal had filed a petition at the Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order against the construction of the condominium in September 2014. The high court granted it on June 16.

The lawyer said there was a suggestion to construct a "glass curtain wall" that would create a mirror-like effect that would reflect the Luneta Park.

No compensation

In a position paper he submitted last July, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay had already insisted that the DMCI was not entitled to just compensation if ever the condominium is demolished.

He said it was "assumed" that the construction of the Torre de Manila violated heritage laws and the Constitution for impairing the monument's physical integrity.

During oral arguments at the SC in August, Hilbay had already manifested before the magistrates that the Torre de Manila should be demolished.

According to Hilbay, the Rizal Monument was intended to be seen with a clear sightline.

“If the way to conserve a painting is by controlling the temperature of its environment, the way to conserve the Rizal Monument is by preserving its sightline,” he said at the time.

Hilbay added the “conservationist and protectionist policies” under Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution should be interpreted as covering not only the Motto Stella, the original title of the Rizal Monument, but also its accompanying sightline.

He also said the City Planning and Development Office had no authority to issue the zoning permit for the DMCI building. Besides, DMCI’s zoning permit is invalid because it goes way beyond the floor-to-area ratio, he added.

The petition against the Torre de Manila was filed by the Knights of Rizal, which had sought to stop the construction and eventually to demolish the condominium for marring the monument's vista. DMCI is the condominium's developer. —NB, GMA News