A first: SC invites orgs for more views on Torre de Manila
The Supreme Court is inviting professional organizations and interest groups to give their position on the controversial Torre de Manila, hoping to get as many viewpoints as possible when it deliberates on the petition to have DMCI Homes condo project demolished for ruining the view of the Rizal Monument.
The move is said to be unprecedented in the Supreme Court, reflecting the significance of the Torre case and the uncharted legal territory it may lead to.
The high court issued the invitation after an en banc session on Tuesday, opening the case to the public aside from appointing amici curiae (friends of the court).
Filed by the Knights of Rizal in September last year, the case was set for oral arguments on July 21. On June 16, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) suspending work on the 49-story building pending the resolution of the case.
Better understanding
“While traditionally an amicus curiae espouses a neutral position on the issues, in the pursuit of a better understanding of the essential issues in this case, the court hereby invites interested nonparties who are not to be hereby considered neutral amici curiae,” the high court said in an advisory on Tuesday.
The high court limited the invited nonparties to professional associations, nongovernment organizations and interest groups in the fields of real estate, tourism, construction, architecture, engineering and heritage conservation.
Any interested group from these sectors may file their briefs within the same period that the court would give to the parties for their post-argument memoranda following their July 21 faceoff.
In a press briefing, Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te explained that the tribunal had the discretion whether to consider or disregard the nonparty briefs to be filed in relation to the case.
“The Post Oral Argument Brief must identify the association, organization or group filing the same. The party must be represented by a lawyer authorized to practice law in the Philippines. While any such party may file the brief, filing can only be done through a lawyer who shall sign the same,” the court advisory read.
Just like the parties, the nonlitigants who wish to give the court their opinion may address issues the tribunal had set as items to be tackled during the oral arguments, including both procedural and substantive questions.
Procedural questions include, among others, whether or not the Knights of Rizal has a legal standing to sue and whether the National Commission on Culture and the Arts has the power to issue a cease-and-desist order against Torre.
Talking points
As to the merits of the case, the Supreme Court said the nonparties may comment on the following points:
“Whether the state can validly restrict an owner’s right to exploit his property in furtherance of the preservation and conservation of a national cultural property;
Whether or not the Torre de Manila project is within the geographical area of a declared Heritage Zone pursuant;
Whether or not Torre de Manila significantly altered the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument as may be defined by law.”
The court also appointed three members of the amici curiae: architect Emmanuel Cuntapay of the Department of Public Works and Highways, an expert on the National Building Code as designated by the Public Works secretary and a representative from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as designated by its chair.
