SC includes Manila gov’t, 3 agencies in suit vs condo
The Supreme Court has ordered the inclusion of the Manila City government and three government agencies in the suit filed by the Knights of Rizal which wants to stop the controversial Torre de Manila condominium project.
In an en banc decision issued last week, the high court included city officials, the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA), National Museum of the Philippines (NMP) and National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) as “necessary parties” to the case.
Before the high tribunal’s order, the sole respondent in the case was DMCI Homes Inc., the owner of the 49-story condominium on Taft Avenue which was 30 percent complete.
At the same time, the court also converted the Knights’ petition from an injunction into a mandamus “in view of the issues presented by the petition which have far-reaching implications, i.e., the extent of the constitutional protection applicable to heritage and cultural treasures as against property rights of land developers.”
If granted, the mandamus could compel the Manila City Hall, NHCP, NCCA and NMP to perform specific acts to address the issues raised by the Knights.
According to the rules of court, a mandamus is a judicial remedy that may be availed of when “any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
In their petition filed in September, the Knights, along with Las Damas de Rizal Philippines Inc., asked the high court to stop DMCI from proceeding with the project and order the “immediate and complete demolition” of Torre de Manila in order to preserve the visual corridors or vista of the Rizal Monument for posterity.
“[A] completed Torre de Manila would forever ruin the sight line of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park; [the] Torre de Manila building would loom at the back and overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance,” the petitioners said.
They added that the construction violated various laws, among them Republic Act No. 4846 or the Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act of 1966 and RA No. 10066 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009.
The petitioners also said Torre de Manila would “devalue” the importance of the monument, which, according to the Knights, “[was] the identifying mark of our country’s irreplaceable greatness where all foreign dignitaries, state visitors and the like pay homage and [offer] respect thereof.”
“The development project would cause permanent and monumental prejudice and injustice to present and future generations of Filipinos,” they added.
The groups called on the high court to issue a “writ of pamana” (heritage) or a “writ of kasaysayan” (history) as a legal remedy for the protection of a citizen’s right to “all the country’s artistic and historic wealth [which] constitute [a] treasure of the nation,” as provided by Sections 14, 15 and 16, of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution.
