Rizal’s Knights besiege Torre in SC

EVENT HORIZON A series of shots taken by Inquirer photographer Edwin Bacasmas from April to September shows the rising Torre de Manila building behind the Rizal Monument. Critics of the condo project believe the Supreme Court can still stop this “blatant disrespect for our national heritage.”

Saying they come in defense of history and national heritage, a group opposing a high-rise condominium project in Manila went to the Supreme Court (SC)  on Friday to seek its demolition for marring the view of the Rizal Monument.

The Knights of Rizal, an organization promoting the legacy of national hero Dr. Jose Rizal, cited at least six laws and an international agreement allegedly being violated by the project.

A petition was filed in the SC against realty developer DMCI Homes, seeking “the immediate and complete demolition of Torre de Manila to clear the view of the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park for posterity.”

The construction of the 46-story building on Taft Avenue has been drawing protests since 2012, starting with an online campaign where it was denounced as “Terror de Manila” by tour guide and cultural activist Carlos Celdran.

Most photographed

The petitioners, represented by Knights of Rizal legal counsel William Jasarino, said it would “trivialize” the national shrine and centerpiece of the 58-hectare park which used to be an open bayside field where Rizal was executed by firing squad in 1896, during the Spanish colonial era. The monument itself, where Rizal’s remains were interred in 1912 after the first burial in Paco Cemetery, is one of the most photographed sites in the country.

“Torre de Manila must really be removed because it obstructs the view of the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park. Originally, you won’t see anything behind the Rizal Monument. Now, it’s impossible for you not to capture the building [in a photograph],” Jasarino said in an interview Friday. “If you think about Rizal’s heroism, you’d see the greed for profit at the expense of an important historical and cultural shrine.”

Historian Michael Charleston Chua, also a Knights member, expressed confidence that the high court would side with their petition. “Don Quixote fought windmills. They (DMCI) are big but we are counting on the Supreme Court. We know the high court will favor us because what we’re looking after is our national history,” Chua told reporters.

Backed by ‘Las Damas’

In support of the Knights, Amalia Rosales, president of the Las Damas de Rizal Philippines Inc., also made an emotional appeal for more Filipinos to support their cause, noting how other countries revere their national monuments.

“It hurts us to see how we don’t seem to care about our national monuments. We definitely condemn this very strongly, this blatant disrespect for our national heritage. We call on all the Filipino people to be with us in this particular struggle. We will win if we are together,” said Rosales.

The 26-page petition warned that “(a) completed Torre de Manila would forever ruin the sightline of the Rizal Monument in Luneta Park: Torre de Manila building would loom at the back and overshadow the entire monument, whether up close or viewed from a distance. No one can take a photo of the Rizal Shrine without also capturing the high-rise condominium at its back.”

“If commercial or business interest is given priority over a cultural heritage as great as the Rizal Monument, future generations of Filipinos and other individuals will have nothing left to properly identify with the heroic past of the nation,” it added.

The petitioners contended that the DMCI project violated a Manila zoning ordinance that allows only school and government buildings with a maximum of seven stories in Torre de Manila’s location.

The realty firm was originally granted a permit to construct a structure of seven floors. Construction is about 23-percent complete, having reached 19 floors as of last month, they noted.

The construction had also allegedly violated the National Historical Commission of the Philippines’ “Guidelines on Monuments Honoring National Heroes, Illustrious Filipinos and Other Personages,” which “dictate that historic   monuments should assert a visual “dominance” over the surroundings.”

It would also run counter to the country’s commitment to the Venice Charter or the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, which states that “the concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event.”

The petitioners cited other laws allegedly being violated: Republic Act No. 4846 or the Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act; Republic Act No. 7356, which created the National Commission on Culture and the Arts; and Republic Act No. 1006 or the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, which “provides for the protection and conservation of the national cultural heritage.”

They also described the project as a “nuisance” to the vista of the Rizal Monument, one that “annoys or offends the senses” in violation of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The project was granted a permit under the administration of then Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim. Months after former President and now Mayor Joseph Estrada took over, the Manila City Council suspended the project’s construction in November last year, citing zoning violations.

Construction, however, continued in January after the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals granted DMCI an exemption from the zoning regulation.

The Senate committee on education, arts and culture chaired by Senator Pia Cayetano has initiated an inquiry into the Torre project, where Knights representatives attending last week’s hearing revealed plans to challenge it in the SC.

DMCI chair Isidro Consunji did not respond to the committee’s invitation to attend the hearing.

The company on Friday declined to issue a statement in connection with the SC petition. In earlier statements, Consunji and DMCI lawyer Roel Pacio maintained that the project had already been granted permits by the city government and that a Nov. 6, 2012, letter from the National Historical Commission of the Philippines had established that it did not violate any law pertaining to the Rizal Park. With a report from Doris Dumlao