DMCI recalls: SolGen once said Torre ‘no threat’

Why the turnaround?

The developer of the controversial condo project Torre de Manila on Friday noted how the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) had apparently changed its position on the Supreme Court case that seeks the building’s demolition.

DMCI Homes was referring to the position paper filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday by Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who maintained that the structure was illegal in the eyes of the national government. The paper supported the petition filed by the Knights of Rizal, which wants Torre torn down for spoiling the view of the Rizal Monument.

In a statement, the company recalled that when the OSG issued a comment on the case on Jan. 12, it asked the high court to discharge the National Museum, National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) as respondents.

Back then, it noted, the OSG based its comment “on the grounds that the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument is not threatened with destruction or alteration by Torre de Manila.”

“In the case of NCCA, [the OSG] stated that it does not have jurisdiction over the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park, which are neither World Heritage Sites nor works of national artists,” DMCI’s statement further read.

In the Jan. 12 pleading, the OSG also said the agencies “cannot be compelled to stop the construction of Torre de Manila” as its location is “way beyond the protected [five-meter] buffer zone of the Rizal Monument and the Rizal Park.”

The OSG also noted then that the building’s site is “private property, the use of which cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by a government agency, such as respondent NHCP, without clear legal grounds.”

It said “there is clearly no sufficient legal basis that would justify respondent NHCP’s issuance of a CDO (cease and desist order) to stop the construction” of Torre.

In a position paper filed on Thursday, Hilbay said Torre’s rise violated the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 as well as the “Constitution’s conservationist and protectionist policies.”

While conceding that the building’s location is “not within the geographical area of a declared heritage zone,” he said the government’s definition of the Rizal Monument’s “physical integrity… necessarily includes its sight line, because it is a visual phenomenon.”

To this, DMCI replied: “If the law stated that physical integrity includes sight line, then we would have complied. But the fact is, there is no law that defines or regulates visual corridors. Again, rules should not be changed arbitrarily and midway.

“We broke no law and sought clearance from the government institution mandated to conserve the history and cultural heritage of the country. And yet, we are being forced to abandon a project that will help improve the living conditions in the City of Manila.”