DMCI: Rizal Shrine not yet 'cultural treasure, nat'l monument' when building of Torre de Manila began

The builder of the Torre de Manila said their tower did not violate heritage laws that protect historical and cultural sites because the Rizal Shrine in Luneta was not yet declared a protected cultural treasure or a national monument when DMCI Homes obtained its permits and began building Torre de Manila in 2012.

 

DMCI said the monument was declared a "national monument" only on April 13, 2013 by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP). The National Museum of the Philippines, meanwhile, declared it a National Cultural Treasure on November 14, 2013.

 

“These facts are critical to the issue of Torre De Manila. Because if rules can be changed midway, then it is no longer a fair game. How can legitimate business comply if rules keep changing drastically?,” DMCI Homes said on Friday.

 

In a position paper earlier submitted to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay claimed the tower's construction violated RA 10066 when it marred the Rizal monument's sightline, which he said formed part of the monument's physical integrity.

 

But DMCI maintained there is currently no law governing visual corridors.

 

“If the law stated that physical integrity includes sightline, then we would have complied," the company said.

 

"But the fact is, there is no law that defines or regulates visual corridors. Again, rules should not be changed arbitrarily and midway," it added.

 

Even Republic Act No. 4846 or the Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act, and Republic Act No. 7356 or the law creating the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) do not cover the protection of the bakground or backdrop of any historical or cultural property, DMCI claimed.

 

"The law does not prohibit the construction of any structure that would overshadow,  mar or otherwise obstruct the background or backdrop of any monument or park," the DMCI said in its own position paper filed with the SC.

 

DMCI noted how the Torre de Manila was being singled out when other tall buildings "flank" the Rizal monument on the T. M. Kalaw Street side. These buildings are only about 300 meters away from the monument, while Torre De Manila is almost kilometer - or around 870 meters - away, said DMCI.

 

Seeking the lifting of a restraining order against the controversial tower, DMCI Homes described the Knight of Rizal's petition as "high on political drama but short on the facts and the law."

 

The DMCI noted several high-rises and buildings also surround other monuments in Metro Manila and other parts of the country, like the runabout at the Bantayog ni Bonifacio in Caloocan City, where an SM supmermarket and

other buildings stand.

 

Another example is the Bonifacio monument on J.P. Rizal Street in Makati City where several high-rise condominiums and commercial buildings have been built, DMCI said.

 

DMCI also warned that a ruling against the construction of Torre de Manila would create a dangerous precedent and result in an "economic havoc." 

 

The condominium cannot also be considered as nuisance because it does not pose a direct threat to public health or safety, said the DMCI.

 

The DMCi stressed it had secured all necessary permits from the Manila government for the construction of the condominium.

 

DMCI said the Torre de Manila should be covered by the doctrine of operative fact in case the permits issued to it would later be found to be invalid.

 

The doctrine of operative fact states that the existence of the law or executive act is recognized prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded. — ELR, GMA News