Unparalleled chance to uphold nat’l heritage

The Supreme Court of the Philippines is in a position that can change the way we plan our towns and cities. It can make an impact, not just on heritage conservation, but on urban planning and sustainable development around the country, by making the current helter-skelter development a thing of the past.

I attended two oral arguments on the Torre de Manila case. The oral arguments on August 18, 2015 were very important for planning and zoning in the Philippines. We were introduced to Manila City Ordinance No. 8119, the ordinance that adopted the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of 2006. I learned that Manila's Zoning Ordinance has several provisions that protect heritage, four years before the Heritage Law was enacted!

The biggest revelation was that all the high-rise buildings in Manila built since June 2007 may not have valid permits because they do not conform with the floor area ratio (FAR) allowed in their respective zones and did not go through the procedure mandated by the ordinance to obtain a variance.

During his six years as mayor, Alfredo Lim had this erroneous notion that because the National Building Code allowed a higher limit, he could suspend the height limits prescribed by the stricter local ordinance. Unfortunately, he was not allowed to suspend any provisions of the zoning ordinance. And thus, many of the permits they issued did not follow the rule of law.

Indeed, many violations were uncovered. The current City Legal Officer of Manila, Jose Alberto Flaminiano, in replying to questioning by Justice Francis Jardeleza, conceded that former city officials may be held both administratively and criminally liable for issuing zoning and building permits for Torre de Manila.

The week after, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay was asked to take the stand on behalf of his clients, the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), and the National Museum (NM). We commend the Solicitor General for upholding his statutory duty to articulate a legal argument that best serves his ultimate client, the Republic of the Philippines.

The National Historical Commission of the Phillippines (NHCP) is a different story. Why a government cultural agency would say that Torre de Manila “cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the said National Monument” and still continue to defend its position is truly deplorable.

It would seem the NHCP is more concerned with its own narrow judgment than with the protection of historical monuments. The NHCP is there to protect historical pieces of property significant to the nation. And if the Solicitor General believed in a basis for stronger protection of such, if the NHCP was indeed imbued with a sense of duty to the nation, it should have leaped at the prospect, just as the NCCA and NM did.

The last of the oral arguments on the Torre de Manila case were held on September 1, 2015. The issue I have always raised regarding the NHCP is that it issues vague opinions. These unclear statements are truly a disservice to the nation.

Justice Teresita de Castro asked the question I've always wanted to ask the NHCP. If the NHCP believed that Torre de Manila would have ruined the visual corridor of the Rizal Monument, why didn't it say so in its letter to Mayor Lim? That important opinion was conveniently omitted in the letter to Mayor Lim but contained in other letters and opinions they released.

Unfortunately, the question was not answered directly. And Justice de Castro pointed out, had the NHCP letter to Mayor Lim contained the opinion that Torre de Manila would destroy the visual corridor, the permit for variance may not have even been issued.

There is a possibility the NHCP will get away with what it did on technicalities. But if that happens, that will not be a vindication. That condominium will haunt their consciences for as long as it stands.

And how the NHCP chair and her legal counsel could just stand before the podium in agreement while the significance of the Rizal Monument was being disparaged by some justices is evidence enough that they really just care about themselves and are not willing to defend our heritage. For them to agree that Rizal would not mind a photo bomber behind his monument is reprehensible.

National Museum Director Jeremy Barns also expressed his frustration. He writes, "At bottom, I really, really, really hated the fact that my esteemed colleague at the NHCP and her counsel just went along with the disparagement by some of the justices of the Rizal Monument as being contrary to the wishes of Rizal himself, or the work of a Swiss foreigner (who was regarded as one of the greatest sculptors in Europe at the time, never mind that Richard Kissling was himself a keen admirer of Rizal and that Switzerland was a nation that Rizal, a true internationalist, and cosmopolitan, loved dearly) or being inaccurately placed away from where he was shot."

He adds, “As if any of this matters! Why should this matter to us now when it mattered not at all to our forebears? The decision to build the monument was taken in response by Governor Taft in 1901 to the expressed desire of the Filipino people; and its construction, in terms of style and design and place, was openly taken by a duly constituted national committee of Filipinos, with not an American among them, and was only completed in 1913. Hardly the hurried project of American imperial propaganda, but of deliberative national fundraising, promotion, competition, fabrication and installation, a model which we could well adopt in the erection of national monuments even now, hardly any of which in recent decades have received popular acclaim, let alone ownership and affection.”

“And what this committee, which included Paciano Rizal, achieved, has undoubtedly been consequently sanctified by all the people and all the generations and all our national rituals since 1913. Upon its centennial in 2013, we took a hard look at all this history – yes history – which the NHCP seems now to belittle, as well as cultural significance, which the NHCP did not even bother to refer to before the Court, before the NM resolved to declare it a National Cultural Treasure. Gosh, whenever a Rizal monument is erected anywhere around the world it usually imitates the design of his mausoleum-monument at Luneta precisely because it is iconic and culturally valid! Why else would replicas have been allowed to have been erected, with the explicit approval of our National Government, with the endorsement of the NHCP, in countries ranging from Spain to China? Why didn't the Court ask this of them? Why didn't they ask all manner of related questions?”

NCCA Chair Felipe de Leon, Jr. agrees, “To trivialize Dr. Jose Rizal is to show disrespect for the nation.”

Finally, Director Barns stresses, "Why relegate a national monument like the Rizal Monument to the protection of the City of Manila when it's, uh, national? I never got to understand that, given the arguments aired at the Court. There are dozens of local monuments in the City of Manila, but the Rizal Monument? Why should we in the National Government rely on a dysfunctional LGU for its protection, when the Rizal Monument has been under national jurisdiction since… when? Can the NHCP even tell us?"

This case will be written in our history books. What legacy will this Supreme Court leave to future generations of Filipinos? Our esteemed justices have been given this unparalleled opportunity to protect the heritage of our nation and ensure the implementation of planning and zoning laws all over the Philippines. They must remember that their decision can be the knight in shining armor that our heritage needs. Or it can open the floodgates for corporate greed, and lead to the demise of our heritage, our country’s heart and soul. What will their choice be?

(Ivan Henares is the president of the Heritage Conservation Society and a senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines-Asian Institute of Tourism. He is one The Outstanding Young Men of the Philippinesin 2012.)