SolGen blames Manila govt for ‘illegal’ Torre de Manila project

The construction of the 49-storey Torre de Manila condominium violated heritage laws in relation to the 1987 Constitution for marring the Rizal Monument's visual corridor, according to Solicitor General Florin Hilbay.

In a 10-page position paper, Hilbay said the construction of the controversial tower, which is being contested by the Knights of Rizal, violates Republic Act No. 10066 or the Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, in relation to the Constitution's conservationist and protectionist policies.

Hilbay pinned the blame on the Manila City government, which he said violated "Ordinance No. 8119 for issuing zoning and building permits despite the Torre de Manila's non-compliance with the floor-to-area (FAR) ratio limit."

"The act of the City of Manila in granting exemption to DMCI from the FAR limit constitutes grave abuse of discretion because such exemption leads to the impairment of the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument," he added.

DMCI Homes Inc. is the developer of the condominium project.

Hilbay said the tower also violates the floor-to-area ratio of 4.00 allowed in the height restriction limit, meaning a building in the area should not be as tall as seven storeys. Torre de Manila has a floor-to-area ratio of 7.79.

Hilbay serves as the legal counsel for the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), National Historical Commission, and the National Museum, all co-respondents of DMCI.

Responsibility

According to Hilbay, Section 25 of RA 10066 states that the local government has the responsibility to adopt measures to secure the integrity of "immovable cultural properties" like the Rizal Monument, and to regulate any violation of its physical integrity.

He acknowledged that the DMCI appeared to have secured all the needed formal government permits. "[But] whether those permits are defective is a separate matter," he said.

Hilbay said preserving the Rizal Monument's dominance, vista points, vista corridors, sightlines, and setting is among the constitutional mandate to conserve, promote and popularize historical and cultural heritage and resources.

"The Torre de Manila significantly alters the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument. In the case of the Rizal Monument, its physical integrity necessarily includes its sightline," he said.

"As a national cultural treasure or cultural property, the Rizal Monument was intended to be, and has always been, seen with a clear sightline. The sightline is as much a part of the Rizal Monument because it is a visual phenomenon," Hilbay added.

Hilbay said that the physics of the Rizal Monument is such that the obelisk, the statue, and its sightline constitute an integrated unit. "Its visual presence which has made it a transcendent cultural artifact is possible precisely because its parts - the obelisk, the statue, and its sightline - are seen as an integrated whole."

Hilbay clears NHCP, NCCA, Nat'l Museum

Meanwhile, Hilbay maintained that the NHCP, the NCCA, and the National Museum had no direct participation in the granting of permits, licenses, certificates, and/or exemptions that paved the way for the construction of the Torre de Manila.

He emphasized that the DMCI did not even include the NHCP, NCC, and NM on the list of government agencies and local government offices that gave clearances, permits, and certificates related to the Torre de Manila.

On the issue of jurisdiction, Hilbay said the Knights of Rizal's immediate resort to the Supreme Court without going through lower courts was "justifiable as an exceptional circumstance that warrants immediate action from this honorable court."

Hilbay claimed any ruling from the SC on the Torre de Manila issue would not have an effect on other shrines and monuments, saying similar issues involving sightline in other monuments would have to be resolved on a case-to-case basis.

Hilbay also insisted that the DMCI is not entitled to just compensation because it is "assumed" that the construction of the Torre de Manila violated heritage laws and the constitution for impairing the monument's physical integrity. —KBK, GMA News