SolGen finally faces SC, wants Torre de Manila demolished

For the first time since oral arguments on Torre de Manila started in July, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay finally faced the Supreme Court on Tuesday to support the demolition of the 49-storey Torre de Manila building for marring the visual corridor of the Rizal Monument.

Speaking before the justices, Hilbay, legally representing the National Museum and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, insisted that the condominium impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta.

Hilbay said the monument is a “visual phenomenon that exists as an integrated unit” that includes not only the bronze sculpture and obelisk but also the ground and the space in which it is located.

“The government is asking the Honorable Court to order private respondent DMCI to demolish Torre de Manila, an illegal construction, to the extent that it impairs the sightline of the Rizal Monument," he said.

The petition against the Torre de Manila was filed by the Knights of Rizal, which had sought to stop the construction and eventually to demolish the condominium for marring the monument's vista. DMCI is the condominium's developer.

Hilbay asked the SC to order the Manila City government and the concerned national agencies to oversee the demolition of Torre de Manila and provide the necessary reports to the high court until its judgment is fully enforced.

Clear sightline

According to Hilbay, the Rizal Monument was intended to be seen with a clear sightline.

“If the way to conserve a painting is by controlling the temperature of its environment, the way to conserve the Rizal Monument is by preserving its sightline,” he said.

Hilbay added the “conservationist and protectionist policies” under Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution should be interpreted as covering not only the Motto Stella, the original title of the Rizal Monument, but also its accompanying sightline.

He also said the City Planning and Development Office had no authority to issue the zoning permit for the DMCI building. Besides, DMCI’s zoning permit is invalid because it goes way beyond the floor-to-area ratio, he added.

He also said only the Sangguniang Panlungsod of City Council as per recommendation of the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments Appeals has the authority to issue the permission for variance or exception from the ordinary zoning rules.

He said the necessary and authorized variance should have been secured by DMCI “prior to conducting any business activity or construction on the[ir] property/land.”

"Given these facts and conclusions of law, what is apparent is that DMCI was less-than-prudent both in securing the required permits and in building Torre de Manila,” said Hilbay.

"A diligent developer would have gone through the required processes under the Ordinance; it would not have built the Torre de Manila with undue haste,” he added.

Justices' concerns

Associate Justices Francis Jardeleza, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Antonio Carpio raised concerns on determining and measuring sightlines for particular cultural and historical monuments.

Hilbay said he was not asking the high tribunal to determine the metes and bounds of the monument’s sightline.

“But take judicial notice that sight line has already been impaired. The Rizal Monument is meant to be forward facing. Any reasonable person will not argue that the sightline has not been impaired,” he said.

"You are asking us to say that it is illegal to put a Torre behind the park, but we don't know how far. We have to come up with a ruling that will guide the developers. You want us to legislate the sight line but not how far,” said Carpio.

Hilbay, in response, suggested that in the future, Congress and local government units can create guidelines on determining sight lines of cultural and historical sites.

Leonen, during interpellation, said Hilbay seemed to be asking the court to create a new rule on continuing mandamus, which he said usually refers only to environmental laws. —KBK, GMA News