Torre de Manila to set bad precedent if not demolished –petitioner

(Updated 7:42 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments on a petition against the controversial Torre de Manila project, with the petitioner warning that other buildings would crop up near Luneta if the condominium is not demolished.

"Ito ang aming kinakatakutan, na dadami pa ang building katulad ng Torre de Manila," William Jasarino, legal counsel for petitioner Knights of Rizal, told the magistrates.

"Kapag nandyan ang mga malalaking gusali, dadami din ang mga patalastas. Masasabi ba natin na walang masamang mangyayari?" he added.

Jasarino insisted that the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park "represent the soul of the nation."

"Remove the park, then you don't have that anymore," he said.

During interpellation, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza asked Jasarino why his client filed the petition only when the condominium, a project of DMCI Project Developer Inc., was already 22.83 percent complete and has already reached 19 storeys.

"Pardon my response, sir, but why not? We have been directing efforts, statements to DMCI, participating in public hearings," said Jasarino

He said his camp had to first consider all factors before deciding to file a formal petition on September 14 last year.

"In our minds, it was never too late to file," Jasarino added.

He also said they did not file an injunction before a lower court because "by now, it will not have been resolved. Torre de Manila would have already been up."

"You did not go to the lower courts because you don't trust the lower court. Don't you think that's unfair?" Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said.No legal weight?

Jasarino also noted how the DMCI did not honor a cease and desist earlier issued by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts against it.

Jardeleza said the petitioner's reliance on the National Historical Commission of the Philippines to justify the demolition of the building would have no legal weight.

"Just because it has no force in law, it should be disregarded? I submit that the NHCP guidelines should be followed because they are meant to inculcate respect for these heritage sites," Jasarino responded.

Jasarino said apart from the DMCI, also committing an "infraction of law" in the construction of the Torre de Manila were former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, who greenlighted the project without securing the process of exemption.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Arturo Brion and Bienvenido Reyes were on leave, while Associate Justice Jose Perez has already recused from the case.

Among those who attended the oral arguments was Sen. Pia Cayetano, who had openly opposed the construction of the 46-storey building.

The oral arguments were ongoing as of posting time. To be covered are the following topics:

•  whether the threshold and purely legal issue on the definition of the Constitutional mandate to conserve, promote and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources includes the preservation of its prominence, dominance, vista points, vista corridors, sight lines, and setting
•  the specific laws, statutes, ordinances and international covenants that the DMCI breached as a result of the construction of the Torre de Manila and how the said tower becomes a nuisance per se; and the legal consequences of the violation of any of these laws
•  whether or not Torre de Manila significantly altered the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument as may be defined by law
•  the effect of permits, licenses and opinions issued by public respondents as regards the validity of the construction of the Torre de Manila project
•  the total damage to be sustained by private respondents, including the workers, the subcontractors, the investors, and the buyers of the project, in case the building is demolished
•  whether stopping the construction and the building's demolition constitute taking of private property requiring just compensation.

—KBK/JJ/JST, GMA News