Gov’t tells SC: Torre de Manila is ‘illegal’

EDWIN BACASMAS/INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

As far as the national government is concerned, the construction of Torre de Manila is illegal as it mars the “physical integrity” of the Rizal Monument which “necessarily includes its sight line.”

And it’s also the city government’s fault, according to Solicitor General Florin Hilbay.

In a 10-page position paper filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday, Hilbay said the preservation of the Rizal Monument should include an undisturbed sight line. The argument supports the petition of the Knights of Rizal (KoR) to have the 49-story condominium demolished.

“The physics of the Rizal Monument is such that the obelisk, the statue and its sight line constitute an integrated unit. Its visual presence which has made it a transcendent cultural artifact is possible precisely because its parts are seen as an integrated whole,” Hilbay said.

Referring to his office as the Tribune of the People, Hilbay said the “impairment of the monument’s physical integrity warrants the declaration by this honorable court that the construction of the Torre de Manila is illegal.”

Representing three agencies

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is representing the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) and National Museum in the case filed by the Knights against the condominium owner, DMCI Project Developers Inc.

The high court earlier included the three government agencies as respondents in the case when it converted the Knights’ petition from an injunction into a mandamus in November. It heard KoR’s oral arguments on July 21 and will hear DMCI’s side on Aug. 4.

Torre’s construction was suspended in mid-June after the SC issued a temporary restraining order as sought by KoR.

Hilbay said “the Constitution enacts conservationist and protectionist policies with respect to the cultural treasure of the nation. Meanwhile, the statutory mandate to protect the physical integrity of cultural artifacts necessarily includes the protection of the sight line of the Rizal Monument.”

Despite being outside heritage zone

While he conceded that Torre’s location was “not within the geographical area of a declared heritage zone,” its intrusion into the view of the Rizal Monument was in violation of the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009, “in relation to the Constitution’s conservationist and protectionist policies” under Article 14, Sections 14 and 15.

The physical integrity of the monument, Manila’s most recognizable landmark and national hero Dr. Jose Rizal’s final resting place, “necessarily includes its sight line.”

The Solicitor General also affirmed the NCCA’s power to issue a cease and desist order against activities “that will affect the cultural property when the physical integrity of national cultural treasures or important cultural properties are found to be in danger of destruction or significant alteration.”

Hilbay also defended the NCCA, NHCP and National Museum from being answerable for the building’s construction, saying the agencies “had no direct participation in the granting of permits, licenses certificates and or exemptions that paved the way for the construction of Torre de Manila.”

According to him, it was the Manila City government that violated its own laws when it granted DMCI an exemption from a local ordinance which limits to seven stories the buildings to be constructed at the site on Taft Avenue.

“The act of the City of Manila in granting exemption to DMCI… constitutes grave abuse of discretion because such exemption leads to the impairment of the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument,” Hilbay said.

In case the high court decides in favor of the KoR, Hilbay said the national government was “not required to compensate private parties for the exercise of acts that are illegal or unconstitutional.”

But he pointed out that “it’s a different matter” when it comes to compensation from the Manila city government.