DMCI in Torre de Manila case: Heritage laws don’t protect vistas

Property developer DMCI Homes on Tuesday insisted that vista corridors and sight lines are not among those protected by the constitutional provisions on the conservation of heritage sites.

DMCI lawyer Victor Lazatin, during the resumption of oral arguments at the Supreme Court, said vista and sight lines are not found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in constitutional deliberations, and in any Philippine heritage laws.

Moreover, Lazatin said the conservation of heritage sites should always be balanced with respect to other rights of the people.

"It should be balanced with not only due process, equal protection as well as passing of ex-post facto law,” Lazatin said.

Lazatin said the Torre de Manila’s “social function” of providing decent housing should also be taken into consideration. He said units at the condominium are being sold at P70,000 per square meter or 20 percent cheaper than other developers.

“Isn’t that a social act by providing decent housing? Isn’t that a legitimate concern or are we just going to look at what heritage enthusiasts are saying and forget about rule of fairness,” the lawyer said.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza said there was nothing wrong in DMCI providing reasonably priced properties. “The question is when your ability to make a profit collides with values [and[ culture. Why on Earth, of all places, do you have to build where the Torre is?”

“DMCI conducted due diligence. It is not a cultural site. For God’s sake it was a parking lot. Even the Supreme Court, your honor please, conducted its own due diligence [when it constructed a] 30-storey Hall of Justice," Lazatin said.

Lazatin said he admires and puts Rizal in high regard but insisted the Spanish-era Filipino nationalist was no demigod.

“His statue does not possess a super constitutional power that acts like a laser sword that any building exceeding the line of sight should be torn down. I do not believe that,” he said.

During interpellation, however, Jardeleza said while vista and sight line were not mentioned in the Charter’s text, it was also important to determine the “intent” of the framers of the Constitution when they crafted its cultural heritage-related provisions.

"If a word of art or technical meaning is used in the Constitution, then you should construe the meaning of the word in its technical or word of art meaning," said Jardeleza.

Lazatin, however, said "conservation" as used in the Constitution should be interpreted in its “ordinary meaning as understood by simple people" to pertain to a heritage site's physical integrity, rather than looking at the term "conserve" at a technical standpoint.

The SC justice said DMCI should not limit its interpretation of Section 14, 15, and 16 of Article XIV of the Constitution (on “Arts and Culture") to “physical integrity."

When the 1987 Constitution was crafted, its framers used “conserve” to pertain not only to a heritage site’s physical integrity, but also its sight lines and vista.

This, Jardeleza said, was evidenced by international conventions and charters like the 1964 Venice Charter, of which the Philippines was a participating country.

Jardeleza said there seemed to be a "clash of values” between petitioner Knights of Rizal, which raises the “deep cultural value of awe on Rizal,” and the DMCI, which raises a “counter-cultural interpretation that Rizal is just another hero and there are others.”

Jardeleza said he considered the Rizal Monument a "built heritage” entitled to protection, while Lazatin insisted the statue "does not fall under architectural structure and is a work of art, more than an engineering structure."

Jardeleza said “this court will be abdicating its duty to lay down constitutional principles” if it would send the case down to a lower court, instead of settling “purely legal issues” about the petition.

During the oral arguments, Lazatin also appealed to the high tribunal to lift the temporary restraining order against the construction of the tower. The lawyer said the TRO has already resulted in 700 laborers losing their jobs, adding that only a few have been absorbed by DMCI.

Hundred more working off site were also adversely affected by the SC order, the lawyer added.

Lazatin also insisted DMCI should be paid just compensation in case the condominium gets demolished because there would be a “taking of property for public use” in case the buffer zone for the Luneta Park gets extended.

Lazatin agreed to submit a copy of a television interview of Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, in which he purportedly cleared the construction of the Torre de Manila after conducting a site inspection of the Luneta Park. -NB, GMA News